A month After Emergency Declaration, Trump's Promises Largely Unfulfilled

[HarryStotle]

And FOX, Redstate, and Breitbart are “real” news sources?

Yeah, just as “real” as any other. The important question — which needs to be assessed independently of political affiliation by you — is how accurate is ANY source.

You can continue depending upon fallacious thinking (genetic fallacy) to guide you, but fallacious thinking is just that.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The important question — which needs to be assessed independently of political affiliation by you — is how accurate is ANY source.

That is the very question whose answer has been irrationally swayed by Trump and others. And no, not all sources are equally accurate.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

The important question — which needs to be assessed independently of political affiliation by you — is how accurate is ANY source.

That is the very question whose answer has been irrationally swayed by Trump and others. And no, not all sources are equally accurate.

Never said they were. The question of accuracy, however, is not answered prematurely by political affiliation or whether or not the source shares your view, which is the determiner of “irrationality” and “accuracy” for some.

Make note there are NO left leaning “news” sources in this list.

And FOX, Redstate, and Breitbart are “real” news sources?

Coincidence? Partisanship?

We could add TownHall, Daily Wire, ZeroHedge, the Federalist and a host of others.

The problem is if you make only left leaning media the source for your determination of reality then reality begins to take on the patina of leftism and right leaning sources appear less “real.”

The problem isn’t with reality, it is with the eyes through which reality is viewed.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

HarryStotle:

The important question — which needs to be assessed independently of political affiliation by you — is how accurate is ANY source.

That is the very question whose answer has been irrationally swayed by Trump and others. And no, not all sources are equally accurate.

Never said they were. The question of accuracy, however, is not answered prematurely by political affiliation or whether or not the source shares your view, which is the determiner of “irrationality” and “accuracy” for some.

There may be “some” who work that way, but not many. I, for instance, do not give a pass to any news outlet that somewhat shares my political leanings. There are publications on the left I would dismiss just as fast as some on the right. I go by long-standing reputation and track record, not by ideology. I think most people do too. At least they should.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

LeafByNiggle:

HarryStotle:

The important question — which needs to be assessed independently of political affiliation by you — is how accurate is ANY source.

That is the very question whose answer has been irrationally swayed by Trump and others. And no, not all sources are equally accurate.

Never said they were. The question of accuracy, however, is not answered prematurely by political affiliation or whether or not the source shares your view, which is the determiner of “irrationality” and “accuracy” for some.

There may be “some” who work that way, but not many. I, for instance, do not give a pass to any news outlet that somewhat shares my political leanings. There are publications on the left I would dismiss just as fast as some on the right. I go by long-standing reputation and track record, not by ideology. I think most people do too. At least they should.

I thought this was a particularly accurate discussion of the entire issue…

I know already that you will give it a pass.

A determination of long standing “track records” and “reputations” that are based on ideology mean nothing, although the rationalizing might be comforting to the determiner.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You are confusing the reputation of the News Department of the Wall Street Journal with the reputation of each and every one of the opinion columnists. I thought we were talking about facts, not opinions. Kim is not speaking for the WSJ (which does have a solid reputation.)

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

The important question — which needs to be assessed independently of political affiliation by you — is how accurate is ANY source.

That is the very question whose answer has been irrationally swayed by Trump and others. And no, not all sources are equally accurate.

If you were honest, your assessment of the “irrationality” of the answer wouldn’t be a simple determination that Trump had a hand in it.

What you would be doing is showing how and why the answer is to be understood as “irrational” to debate it on those points. You don’t even attempt to do that, you just point at buzz words like “irrational” and “inaccurate” and “Trump.”

Hardly living up to any real standards of reasonable discourse.

When you stop using Trump’s name and address how and why a determination of inaccurate can be made, then there could be a discussion to be had.

Take a point of disagreement you have with Kim Strassel’s statements and detail where and why she is “inaccurate.” I doubt it will happen, though.

 

[Maximus1]

" Only those ready to find fault in every word he says would read that as a promise."
In a conference about a Wuhan epidemic and the potential of a US epidemic and pandemic, why do you assume anyone viewed his words as a promise?
If you are " the markets" you were just reassured were you not? Money was reassured!
That is unless you want to make the case Trump’s words are so arbitrary, flighty, shallow, and basically of utility slightly above meaningless and arbitrary, he does not contemplate markets when he speaks. I DONT! REASONABLE PEOPLE DON’T.
It seems the promise attribution you give is a red herring.
Trump’s February 2020 statements were inconsistent with the imminent outbreak.
Trump’s so called China ban only banned nationals. Thousands of potential infected flew as if there was no ban at all.
Statements about the cruise ship infected indicate Trump’s concern was HIS NUMBERS of infected being inflated. A statement that was either misdirection or a genuine mindset about other alternatives at work poised to be an outbreak.
To me it seems like you consider his statements simplistic and shallow. Even when made in a context where deaths were potentially 10 to 30 times the death toll of 9/11. ( It is already ten times).
I agree he spoke using hopeful language. How did that translate into getting ready for what was coming. Or at least the high potential?
It seems to me you are telling me that my expectation needs to be lowered to like clown level and my bias is somehow that I do not.

 

[HarryStotle]

You are confusing the reputation of the News Department of the Wall Street Journal with the reputation of each and every one of the opinion columnists. I thought we were talking about facts, not opinions. Kim is not speaking for the WSJ (which does have a solid reputation.)

So does she as a political analyst.

You used the phrase “answer has been irrationally swayed.” I don’t see how facts can be “irrationally swayed,” although I can understand that facts can be inaccurate. Those are two different things.

Much of the debate is not about the facts, it is in the interpretation of the significance of those facts which have been selected with regard to rendering a particular conclusion.

Both the News Departments and opinion columnists are engaged in the interpretation of facts. To be clear, which facts are or are not reported or deemed “significant” in the reporting is now the determiner of what is reported by the news departments. That is how news departments report — they report the selected “facts” in a manner formed by their respective ideologies — which goes a long way to determine how viewers, listeners and readers are, in turn, formed.

So it is senseless to think news departments are engaged in reporting facts — they are engaged in reporting selected facts to tell a certain narrative which is just as ideologically driven as that of the opinion columnists.

At least, some opinion columnists operate under the assumption that they are expressing opinions, while news departments (and their viewers) operate under the delusion that they are solely reporting facts.

 

[FrancisFan43]

I too would like the President to be perfect in every way possible, but he isn’t and neither are the people working under him.

 

[HarryStotle]

" Only those ready to find fault in every word he says would read that as a promise."
In a conference about a Wuhan epidemic and the potential of a US epidemic and pandemic, why do you assume anyone viewed his words as a promise?
If you are " the markets" you were just reassured were you not? Money was reassured!
That is unless you want to make the case Trump’s words are so arbitrary, flighty, shallow, and basically of utility slightly above meaningless and arbitrary, he does not contemplate markets when he speaks. I DONT! REASONABLE PEOPLE DON’T.
It seems the promise attribution you give is a red herring.
Trump’s February 2020 statements were inconsistent with the imminent outbreak.
Trump’s so called China ban only banned nationals. Thousands of potential infected flew as if there was no ban at all.
Statements about the cruise ship infected indicate Trump’s concern was HIS NUMBERS of infected being inflated. A statement that was either misdirection or a genuine mindset about other alternatives at work poised to be an outbreak.
To me it seems like you consider his statements simplistic and shallow. Even when made in a context where deaths were potentially 10 to 30 times the death toll of 9/11. ( It is already ten times).
I agree he spoke using hopeful language. How did that translate into getting ready for what was coming. Or at least the high potential?
It seems to me you are telling me that my expectation needs to be lowered to like clown level and my bias is somehow that I do not.

I have a hard time following your line of thinking here. I have a difficult time following reasoning that is

…so arbitrary, flighty, shallow, and basically of utility slightly above meaningless and arbitrary,…

As to this one…

Trump’s so called China ban only banned nationals. Thousands of potential infected flew as if there was no ban at all.

Were you expecting a more draconian measure back then? I don’t see you criticizing the leaders of other nations taking precisely this measure — Trudeau, In Canada, for example, who closed travel six weeks after the US and still is permitting travel for “essential” travellers as if — as you say — “there was no ban at all.”

 

[HarryStotle]

LeafByNiggle:

Because he views that as something that he can do without inconveniencing the American public. What Trump considered “over exaggerating” would be anything that does inconvenience the American public - like what we are going through right now.

It should be pointed out that he did not shut down travel from China.

This coming from a poster who wrote 28 days ago…

In part you are right.
One could avoid contagion if one were to close the borders.
If yo close them partially, at the beginning of an outbreak like this, your might gain some days, that could be useful if one were to use them to take the other necessary measures.
If your close them when the outbreak is in full swing your accomplish very little of substance.
It may be good politics, of course, amon some constituencies.

So Trump is to be criticized now for not “shutting down” travel from China completely even though you argued then for “partial” restrictions? And even though he closed travel from the most seriously affected countries (China and EU) selectively beginning on January 31st — at least a month earlier than any other country which typically waited until mid-March (See the timeline of travel restrictions).

That would qualify — in your estimation — as “early” and “at the beginning of the outbreak,” yet there is still room for you to criticize even though what he did comports with what you were thinking then, no?

You claimed partial closures (presumably to infected countries) “could be effective” — which Trump did — but you were against total closures (even arguing against border closures with Mexico. Now, however, you are saying he should have “shut down” travel from China.

You made the claim that closing them “…when the outbreak is in full swing your [sic] accomplish very little of substance,” but fail to explain why that would be true. Were you arguing that the US and other affected countries should simply open borders now that the outbreak is “in full swing,” permitting the virus to spread unmitigated but continue to maintain mitigation measures internally? How does that make any sense?

It appears that that it is far too easy to make off-the -cuff critiques when the real situation does not depend upon your ability to think things through consistently.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And even though he closed travel from the most seriously affected countries (China and EU) selectively beginning on January 31st…

Any benefit we may have derived from that action has been completely cancelled by the subsequent downplaying and delaying of leadership on mitigation and preparedness measures.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

And even though he closed travel from the most seriously affected countries (China and EU) selectively beginning on January 31st…

Any benefit we may have derived from that action has been completely cancelled by the subsequent downplaying and delaying of leadership on mitigation and preparedness measures.

Explain the bolded part in a way that makes sense and is provable.

Trump advocated quarantine of the tri-state area, the governors fought him on that and he relented.

What exactly should have been done regarding mitigation and preparedness measures that can be laid squarely at his feet and not some other pair?

The IHME model was repeatedly scaled back as the measures that were taken showed clear successes.

Now New York is resorting to counting deaths (~5000) from “unknown causes” as COVID-19 deaths in order to inflate the numbers. The CDC is advising hospitals to count any deaths (not provable ones — but ANY deaths) that could “plausibly” be attributed to COVID-19 as COVIC deaths. This appears to be an attempt to “stay” the narrative that shutting down the economy was “worth it” by attributing as many deaths as possible to the pandemic. Something doesn’t smell right if we are being honest.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Now New York is resorting to counting deaths (~5000) from “unknown causes” as COVID-19 deaths in order to inflate the numbers. The CDC is advising hospitals to count any deaths (not provable ones — but ANY deaths) that could “plausibly” be attributed to COVID-19 as COVIC deaths.

That’s because we don’t have the resources to test dead bodies in nursing homes when there are more urgent testing needs. Statistically the count is justified.

Explain the bolded part in a way that makes sense and is provable.

One of Trump’s major roles as President is to encourage the rest of the nation. Think of the fireside chats during WWII. Or Churchill’s broadcasts to the British people. In this role Trump fell flat on his face by saying things that downplayed the significance. I’m not going to repeat them here because you know full well what they are. They have been posted in this forum at least a hundred times. Citing the few actions with minor benefit does not make up for this shortcoming.

 

[dvdjs]

Why not get accurate with your statements …

I only wish that Trump and his fans would be more precise, rather than pushing FAKE news. I have stated the actual situation many times with precision.

What were you expecting an outright ban
[/quote
I have stated the proper alternative many times. The key is testing, contract tracing, and strict quarantine. IOW what was successful in Hong Kong, Taiwan, etc.

If you don’t do that, they the effort fails - as it did in the US. And, then, all that remains is a gratuitous insult against foreigners.

What part of that legality do you not comprehend?

See above.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Why not get accurate with your statements …

I only wish that Trump and his fans would be more precise, rather than pushing FAKE news. I have stated the actual situation many times with precision.

What were you expecting an outright ban
[/quote
I have stated the proper alternative many times. The key is testing, contract tracing, and strict quarantine. IOW what was successful in Hong Kong, Taiwan, etc.

If you don’t do that, they the effort fails - as it did in the US. And all that you have is a gratuitous insult against foreigners.

HarryStotle:

What part of that legality do you not comprehend?

See above.

The situations in Hong Kong and Taiwan are entirely unlike the US. Merely to insist that things “should have been done the same” BECAUSE certain measures were successful there is hardly a realistic solution. It worked there, therefore it should be used here isn’t providing anything with “precision.”

It is just a token gesture to make yourself think you have something positive to contribute. There are so many variables — i.e., real world factors — that aren’t even being addressed by your hand waving, which is why it is easy for you to be critical of the actions of others — i.e., no one is depending on you to make those critical decisions. You have the luxury of using your mouth consequence free.

Your penchant to be vague, accusatory and condescending are further demonstrated in this comment: “And all that you have is a gratuitous insult against foreigners.” No, that would be you reading your animus into my comments.

 

[Maximus1]

Taiwan imposed " draconian measures. South Korea also. They won.
And I love, what would you have done?"
It ignores that what I would do, without the resources of the most powerful man on earth, matters. Or is relevant.
If Trump is held to the level of," so what would you have done Me John Q Public, that is a disaster

 

[dvdjs]

The situations in Hong Kong and Taiwan are entirely unlike the US

Yes. They acted promptly and effectively. We did not.

“And all that you have is a gratuitous insult against foreigners.” No, that would be you reading your animus into my comments.

The “you” in my comment, was the generic. I am happy to edit it to “one”. Or to “we”. …

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Now New York is resorting to counting deaths (~5000) from “unknown causes” as COVID-19 deaths in order to inflate the numbers. The CDC is advising hospitals to count any deaths (not provable ones — but ANY deaths) that could “plausibly” be attributed to COVID-19 as COVIC deaths.

That’s because we don’t have the resources to test dead bodies in nursing homes when there are more urgent testing needs. Statistically the count is justified.

Explain the bolded part in a way that makes sense and is provable.

One of Trump’s major roles as President is to encourage the rest of the nation. Think of the fireside chats during WWII. Or Churchill’s broadcasts to the British people. In this role Trump fell flat on his face by saying things that downplayed the significance. I’m not going to repeat them here because you know full well what they are. They have been posted in this forum at least a hundred times. Citing the few actions with minor benefit does not make up for this shortcoming.

There is nothing provable there. He didn’t respond the way you wanted him to. So what?

Nothing he could have done would have been what you wanted because he doesn’t have a D affiliation. No news there and not convincing either. The predictions from IHME and CDC, even with mitigation measures in place, were far far higher than what is happening currently. Things were done right, at least far more right than you are willing to admit.

And given that most of the particular measures were in the hands of state authorities your blaming Trump for not holding his tongue just right to make Democrat supporters feel warm inside has nothing to do with downplaying and delaying of leadership on mitigation and preparedness measures. That was the issue you were supposed to address, remember.