Let's try to be fair in judging trump's killing over 100,000 Americans

[Craig234]

And first thing you do was mention Trump......

Show me the word trump in the first thing I mentioned: "Follow the plan from the Obama administration." It was written before trump and has no mention of him, either.

 

[OscarLevant]

It's not being sarcastic really. It is an overstatement to say that trump's INTENT was to kill masses of Americans, just because he gets a kick out of it or made money from it.

Here's how I see his wrong right now.

As has so often been pointed out, trump is a sociopath and a pathological liar. That's repeated here for explanation. It means he's not capable of caring about others being killed or hurt. He can only care about how that helps or hurts him. And the truth has no value for him itself.

So what I think happened is, trump was given the facts about how bad the virus was, as he told Woodward.

But all he was able to care about was, it was bad news that could make him look bad, hurt his ratings. He didn't want to be a 'bad news' doom and gloom president. That wasn't his idea of being 'the greatest president ever' as he thinks with such incredible delusion.

And so, he did all he's able to, like a child, and just chose to say what he thought would make him look good at the time. How many times have you seen it said that that's who he is - transactional, why he contradicts what he just said so much, because he just says anything to 'win the moment'.

And what 'won the moment' for him was to say the virus was not dangerous, well under control, would be over soon. Not to say, 'this is a huge disaster'. And that's what he did, incapable of understanding the harm it would cause, incapable of caring about it.

In other words, what I'm saying is, the issue is that he is incompetent to be president - lacking the mental basic functions of a human being to handle a crisis like this. His incompetence to understand policy impacts or care about them, to care about anything other than his ratings moment to moment, led to the president being like a ship captain who couldn't stand to say 'avoid the iceberg' and sunk the ship.

I don't think trump had 'evil' intent probably, and even saying it was selfish - which it was - misses the point that his mental problems left him unable to do any better. If a ship captain with no arms wasn't able to steer the ship safely, it's true that that was the problem, but just saying 'he didn't steer the ship safely' wouldn't make clear why.

So, I think that's what happened, and how he is to blame. The virus arrived, and as someone utterly unfit for almost anything, he reacted based on his concern of how it made him look, and did what he thought he should, and just said what he thought would make him look good, not really able to act competently, to listen to the experts and their bad news for the country.

There's an old saying, 'when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail'. And trump's pretty much only skill has been to BS about problems. See problem, deny and BS. And it's the same reaction he had to the virus, except the cost was far higher than spinning his bankruptcy, or trump university, or his crimes paying off mistresses, and so on. Deny and BS.

Who is more dangerous? 1. A powerful criminal. 2. A powerful fool.

I say a powerful fool is more dangerous because a powerful criminal is more predictable.

 

[Craig234]

Who is more dangerous? 1. A powerful criminal. 2. A powerful fool.

What's even worse is, we have someone who is both.

 

[Irwin Corey]

Trump was provided a worse case scenario as I’m sure Obama was regarding Ebola. Both acted according to the state of things at the time not on the basis of something that hadn’t happened yet and may never have happened.

That's spin, his closest advisors were telling him this would define his Presidency; and it has. F A I L U R E!!!

 

[bluesmoke]

From OP:



His intent was narcissistic.

I can understand how one could construe what you say was/is Trump's intent. But he said His intent was to avert national panic. What did Trump say that would support the intent you interpret moreso, and why, than his statement of concern over national panic?

 

[Craig234]

I can understand how one could construe what you say was/is Trump's intent. But he said His intent was to avert national panic. What did Trump say that would support the intent you interpret moreso, and why, than his statement of concern over national panic?

First, to be clear, the point was to say that trump's motive was not to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans, but narcissism. You're asking why it wasn't what trump recently claimed, 'to prevent panic'.

It's based on my understanding of trump, and my opinion of what the facts fit and what makes sense.

If you look at his history, you see a pattern as a sociopathic liar, of how he makes up things to make himself look good, that are complete lies - it's his normal behavior over decades. So if he's criticized for downplaying the virus, he comes up with a reason that makes him look good - to avoid panic.

Funny, you can see how dishonest it is; he told Woodward he 'liked' downplaying the virus. But that came out recently, and now it makes him look bad, he was asked about it and said no he didn't downplay the virus - contradicting himself on tape and obvious facts - but claimed he 'uplayed' it, because that would make him look good, he thought. Pathological liar.

You can get a better understanding on why he downplayed it from his niece, the psychologist. Here are some comments about her statements (her book has a lot more):

In January, when Trump’s advisers alerted him to the pandemic, he raged that public warnings would rattle the markets (and his reelection hopes). Trump’s faith in his ability to warp reality with impunity irresistibly tugged him toward another way: He denied the existence of the threat for many weeks, letting it rampage out of control.

Mary Trump helps us understand why: Faith in these powers of deception were built up over years of wielding them with little consequence, and this became an exercise of power in and of itself, a kind of default setting he can always fall back upon.
It’s also clear in retrospect that when Trump declared in March that “I don’t take responsibility at all” for the epic failure to mobilize testing, it was a seminal moment, a declaration that he would not do this at any point henceforth, no matter what.

Mary Trump helps us understand why: Taking responsibility — undergoing a major course correction — would have constituted an unthinkable admission of failure.

We’re still trapped in this very dynamic. Even as the coronavirus surges in many states — in part due to hasty reopenings demanded by Trump himself — the president continues to urge a rapid reopening of businesses and schools. Once again, we see Trump’s unshakable faith in his ability to dictate how real-world conditions are received by voters — through sheer force of lying.

Another reason is how it defies common sense. What 'panic' is really at issue? It's a phrase that 'sounds good' - presidents are supposed to prevent panic - but doesn't hold up at all. Lying to the country that there were 15 cases heading to zero, instead of the coming several million cases and taking action to prevent them, what 'panic' was actually a threat here, that justified that? It's ridiculous even as an idea.

And, it's also false as his motive. trump has constantly tried to GENERATE panic over false threats, for his own benefit. As former DHSSecretary Jeh Johnson said:

But Johnson said Mr. Trump's "entire campaign strategy" for reelection this year "is to create panic and instill fear in the American people."

"When he talks about how election night is going to be a disaster, how if Joe Biden is elected, he's going to bring in Cory Booker to destroy the suburbs — you'll recall, two years ago, during the midterms, he talked about caravans marching toward the southern border from Central America," Johnson said.

"To say now that the reason he didn't want to be honest with the American people about the dangers of this virus is because he didn't want to create panic is frankly disingenuous."

My explanation, in my opinion, is the only one that makes sense and fits the facts and who trump is and what he does.

 

[bluesmoke]

First, to be clear, the point was to say that trump's motive was not to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans, but narcissism. You're asking why it wasn't what trump recently claimed, 'to prevent panic'.

It's based on my understanding of trump, and my opinion of what the facts fit and what makes sense.

If you look at his history, you see a pattern as a sociopathic liar, of how he makes up things to make himself look good, that are complete lies - it's his normal behavior over decades. So if he's criticized for downplaying the virus, he comes up with a reason that makes him look good - to avoid panic.

Funny, you can see how dishonest it is; he told Woodward he 'liked' downplaying the virus. But that came out recently, and now it makes him look bad, he was asked about it and said no he didn't downplay the virus - contradicting himself on tape and obvious facts - but claimed he 'uplayed' it, because that would make him look good, he thought. Pathological liar.

You can get a better understanding on why he downplayed it from his niece, the psychologist. Here are some comments about her statements (her book has a lot more):



Another reason is how it defies common sense. What 'panic' is really at issue? It's a phrase that 'sounds good' - presidents are supposed to prevent panic - but doesn't hold up at all. Lying to the country that there were 15 cases heading to zero, instead of the coming several million cases and taking action to prevent them, what 'panic' was actually a threat here, that justified that? It's ridiculous even as an idea.

And, it's also false as his motive. trump has constantly tried to GENERATE panic over false threats, for his own benefit. As former DHSSecretary Jeh Johnson said:



My explanation, in my opinion, is the only one that makes sense and fits the facts and who trump is and what he does.

A narcissist believes that whatever he/she says is the truth, even when the opposite of what was said before. I'm pointing out that Trump is on the record as stating his motive/intent for not making public what he knew and downplaying the virus was to avoid panic (that presumably could be worse than the disease itself). He is not on record for stating anything else that contradicts that, until he does. One would think you can't take a single word of what a narcissistic pathological liar says. Yet, at the same time, when he says he take Putin's word above that of US IS, that speaks to me of who Trump is. He might very well believe Putin. But I've heard enough. Trump revealed enough truth to me. That is His transparency. He really is most transparent.

 

[Craig234]

A narcissist believes that whatever he/she says is the truth, even when the opposite of what was said before. I'm pointing out that Trump is on the record as stating his motive/intent for not making public what he knew and downplaying the virus was to avoid panic (that presumably could be worse than the disease itself). He is not on record for stating anything else that contradicts that, until he does. One would think you can't take a single word of what a narcissistic pathological liar says. Yet, at the same time, when he says he take Putin's word above that of US IS, that speaks to me of who Trump is. He might very well believe Putin. But I've heard enough. Trump revealed enough truth to me. That is His transparency. He really is most transparent.

Sometimes they believe their own lies, sometimes they don't and don't care that they're lies.

trump will lie constantly, yet sometimes he does tell the truth, when he thinks he'll benefit more from that. Your point that he's never admitted another motive means zero in my opinion. He's also never said anything other than that he never had affairs with McDougal and Daniels. And?

 

[ludin]

Delusional willful ignorance, from you.

your projection is a failure. we do not care what leftist rags like slate say.

opinion =/= fact

 

[bluesmoke]

Sometimes they believe their own lies, sometimes they don't and don't care that they're lies.

trump will lie constantly, yet sometimes he does tell the truth, when he thinks he'll benefit more from that. Your point that he's never admitted another motive means zero in my opinion. He's also never said anything other than that he never had affairs with McDougal and Daniels. And?

That Trump never admitted another motive means little to me. That I point out the fact to keep debate fair, honest and forthright does matter, regardless of my opinion of the orange blob Jabba the Trump, Public Health Threat-in-Chief.

 

[Craig234]

That Trump never admitted another motive means little to me. That I point out the fact to keep debate fair, honest and forthright does matter, regardless of my opinion of the orange blob Jabba the Trump, Public Health Threat-in-Chief.

I don't object to you mentioning his statement. I'd object to you giving it weight and credibility. Saying that his lies are something to include is one thing, but saying the discussion isn't 'fair' without his lies is too much. He's lost that right with the constant lies. Note it, and note that he constantly lies and his statements usually mean nothing.

 

[Logical1]

The title of this thread is an absolute lie and should be erased.

 

[bluesmoke]

The title of this thread is an absolute lie and should be erased.

If the title were "Let's try to be fair in judging trump's refusing to save over 100,000 Americans", would you not have posted what you have?

 

[veritas1]

It's not being sarcastic really. It is an overstatement to say that trump's INTENT was to kill masses of Americans, just because he gets a kick out of it or made money from it.

Here's how I see his wrong right now.

As has so often been pointed out, trump is a sociopath and a pathological liar. That's repeated here for explanation. It means he's not capable of caring about others being killed or hurt. He can only care about how that helps or hurts him. And the truth has no value for him itself.

So what I think happened is, trump was given the facts about how bad the virus was, as he told Woodward.

But all he was able to care about was, it was bad news that could make him look bad, hurt his ratings. He didn't want to be a 'bad news' doom and gloom president. That wasn't his idea of being 'the greatest president ever' as he thinks with such incredible delusion.

And so, he did all he's able to, like a child, and just chose to say what he thought would make him look good at the time. How many times have you seen it said that that's who he is - transactional, why he contradicts what he just said so much, because he just says anything to 'win the moment'.

And what 'won the moment' for him was to say the virus was not dangerous, well under control, would be over soon. Not to say, 'this is a huge disaster'. And that's what he did, incapable of understanding the harm it would cause, incapable of caring about it.

In other words, what I'm saying is, the issue is that he is incompetent to be president - lacking the mental basic functions of a human being to handle a crisis like this. His incompetence to understand policy impacts or care about them, to care about anything other than his ratings moment to moment, led to the president being like a ship captain who couldn't stand to say 'avoid the iceberg' and sunk the ship.

I don't think trump had 'evil' intent probably, and even saying it was selfish - which it was - misses the point that his mental problems left him unable to do any better. If a ship captain with no arms wasn't able to steer the ship safely, it's true that that was the problem, but just saying 'he didn't steer the ship safely' wouldn't make clear why.

So, I think that's what happened, and how he is to blame. The virus arrived, and as someone utterly unfit for almost anything, he reacted based on his concern of how it made him look, and did what he thought he should, and just said what he thought would make him look good, not really able to act competently, to listen to the experts and their bad news for the country.

There's an old saying, 'when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail'. And trump's pretty much only skill has been to BS about problems. See problem, deny and BS. And it's the same reaction he had to the virus, except the cost was far higher than spinning his bankruptcy, or trump university, or his crimes paying off mistresses, and so on. Deny and BS.

Keep running with that. It's sure to work. Trump hasn't killed anybody. That would be Cuomo and the other Dems who sent infected people into nursing homes. What Trump has done is oversee the largest health mobilization in US history and prod the medical community into creating a vaccine in what will be record time. Let's remember that Obama and Grandpa oversaw 60 million H1N1 infections. Had it been as lethal as Covid, we're looking at 1.8 million deaths.

 

[Felis Leo]

It's not being sarcastic really. It is an overstatement to say that trump's INTENT was to kill masses of Americans, just because he gets a kick out of it or made money from it.

Here's how I see his wrong right now.

As has so often been pointed out, trump is a sociopath and a pathological liar. That's repeated here for explanation. It means he's not capable of caring about others being killed or hurt. He can only care about how that helps or hurts him. And the truth has no value for him itself.

So what I think happened is, trump was given the facts about how bad the virus was, as he told Woodward.

But all he was able to care about was, it was bad news that could make him look bad, hurt his ratings. He didn't want to be a 'bad news' doom and gloom president. That wasn't his idea of being 'the greatest president ever' as he thinks with such incredible delusion.

And so, he did all he's able to, like a child, and just chose to say what he thought would make him look good at the time. How many times have you seen it said that that's who he is - transactional, why he contradicts what he just said so much, because he just says anything to 'win the moment'.

And what 'won the moment' for him was to say the virus was not dangerous, well under control, would be over soon. Not to say, 'this is a huge disaster'. And that's what he did, incapable of understanding the harm it would cause, incapable of caring about it.

In other words, what I'm saying is, the issue is that he is incompetent to be president - lacking the mental basic functions of a human being to handle a crisis like this. His incompetence to understand policy impacts or care about them, to care about anything other than his ratings moment to moment, led to the president being like a ship captain who couldn't stand to say 'avoid the iceberg' and sunk the ship.

I don't think trump had 'evil' intent probably, and even saying it was selfish - which it was - misses the point that his mental problems left him unable to do any better. If a ship captain with no arms wasn't able to steer the ship safely, it's true that that was the problem, but just saying 'he didn't steer the ship safely' wouldn't make clear why.

So, I think that's what happened, and how he is to blame. The virus arrived, and as someone utterly unfit for almost anything, he reacted based on his concern of how it made him look, and did what he thought he should, and just said what he thought would make him look good, not really able to act competently, to listen to the experts and their bad news for the country.

There's an old saying, 'when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail'. And trump's pretty much only skill has been to BS about problems. See problem, deny and BS. And it's the same reaction he had to the virus, except the cost was far higher than spinning his bankruptcy, or trump university, or his crimes paying off mistresses, and so on. Deny and BS.

So here is the question, and forgive the compounding: Is there any data assessment, with (1) no overtly-partisan leaning, that would demonstrate that (2) President Donald Trump's actions or lack thereof contributed to a certain number of deaths (3) that the actions of a reasonably competent President with the same information in front him at the time would have been able to prevent?

And what would those actions have been that would have gotten through a deeply divided Congress and survived challenges from partisan interest groups?

 

[bluesmoke]

I don't object to you mentioning his statement. I'd object to you giving it weight and credibility. Saying that his lies are something to include is one thing, but saying the discussion isn't 'fair' without his lies is too much. He's lost that right with the constant lies. Note it, and note that he constantly lies and his statements usually mean nothing.

His statements, lie or not, belie Himself and his action to come quite often and thus mean a great deal to me. That is Trump's transparency. He is saying who He is and what He is going to do. Undermine the election, this nation, our democracy and that of the world. When Trump accuses people of treason, says to lock people up or cajoles supporters to beat people up, He means it. He wants that to happen. He wants that power. He wants to be Kim, Putin or the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. He is a pathological liar and practically incapable of telling the truth. Yet, is is often telegraphing the truth. Much of what He says most outlandish, he really means and is thus honest. I'd rather Trump's lies be true and His truth be lies.

 

[bluesmoke]

Keep running with that. It's sure to work. Trump hasn't killed anybody. That would be Cuomo and the other Dems who sent infected people into nursing homes. What Trump has done is oversee the largest health mobilization in US history and prod the medical community into creating a vaccine in what will be record time. Let's remember that Obama and Grandpa oversaw 60 million H1N1 infections. Had it been as lethal as Covid, we're looking at 1.8 million deaths.

What do you mean by "oversee"? What's your definition in the context of what you are saying?

 

[veritas1]

What do you mean by "oversee"? What's your definition in the context of what you are saying?

Same as yours. Trump is in charge now so you blame him for the Covid deaths. Obama/Biden were in charge at the time of H1N1 and between 60-100 million people got infected. The difference is that H1N1 was much less lethal than Covid. Had it not been, we'd have had a massive calamity on our hands.

 

[Visbek]

It's not being sarcastic really. It is an overstatement to say that trump's INTENT was to kill masses of Americans, just because he gets a kick out of it or made money from it....

Ethicists go over these kinds of issues all the time. Typically, judgment is based on factors like what it is reasonable for the decision maker to know, what the decision maker did know, the intent, and the consequences. Some emphasize intentions (e.g. contractualists), some the consequences (consequentialists), some both (Parfit).

In this case, the President:
- Had a duty to protect the public
- Had a duty to put the needs of the public above his own needs (notably his desire to be adored and re-elected)
- Knew that SARS-CoV-2 was a deadly disease that could spread rapidly
- Knew that actions like gathering large groups into tight groups could spread the spread of the virus
- Was told, repeatedly, that social distancing, wearing masks etc would reduce the spread of the virus

To me, there is no question that he had no justification whatsoever for his actions, his incompetence, his malignant narcissism that put his own ego and election above that of performing his sworn duty to protect the public. It doesn't really matter if he was doing it for money or kicks or re-election or ego or a combination thereof, because in all cases he has put his own interests above that of 330 million plus people.

Thus, the only truly fair question is: How many people would have died, if he had taken the correct actions? I don't know the answer to that, but it is almost certainly 100,000 or more.

At this point, asking whether "is he responsible for 100,000 deaths, or 150,000 deaths?" starts to get absurd.

 

[yankintx]

Well, here is the naked truth: The United States did not and does not have the resources or infrastructure to manage a pandemic. Never has. So what exactly did you expect Trump to do with nothing or say that would have changed the fact that health and safety of the American people was/is in their own individual hands? Neither the state or federal governments had anything worth distributing except cases of literally rotting masks that expired 10 years ago and no hospital in America had or has the capacity or supplies for a pandemic response.

And what does any of this have to do with the fact that hordes of people chose to ignore State social distancing mandates? Can you link anything Donald Trump did or didn’t do to the hundreds of college students who chose to pack a bar with no social distancing here in violation of the State mandate? Those are the people responsible for community spread and death. Not Donald Trump. You’re putting your life at risk by going anywhere there are other people because there is nothing the government or private sector can do to protect or save you. That is the truth and it’s been the known truth all along.

Tulsa Trump Rally June 2020

Rather irresponsible wouldn't you say?

 

[yankintx]

Blaming 100,000 deaths on Trump is another example of why the left should not be allowed to lead.


.

Tusla Trump Rally June 2020

Not such a good idea eh?

 

[apdst]

Community spread and death happened and continues to happen because the American people have chosen not to do what is necessary or mandated by their State and local leaders no matter what anyone says. That has nothing to do with Trump.

It happened and continues because diseases spread. The mandates are far from 100% effective.

 

[apdst]

Tulsa Trump Rally June 2020

Rather irresponsible wouldn't you say?

The BLM riots.

 

[Craig234]

Ethicists go over these kinds of issues all the time. Typically, judgment is based on factors like what it is reasonable for the decision maker to know, what the decision maker did know, the intent, and the consequences. Some emphasize intentions (e.g. contractualists), some the consequences (consequentialists), some both (Parfit).

In this case, the President:
- Had a duty to protect the public
- Had a duty to put the needs of the public above his own needs (notably his desire to be adored and re-elected)
- Knew that SARS-CoV-2 was a deadly disease that could spread rapidly
- Knew that actions like gathering large groups into tight groups could spread the spread of the virus
- Was told, repeatedly, that social distancing, wearing masks etc would reduce the spread of the virus

To me, there is no question that he had no justification whatsoever for his actions, his incompetence, his malignant narcissism that put his own ego and election above that of performing his sworn duty to protect the public. It doesn't really matter if he was doing it for money or kicks or re-election or ego or a combination thereof, because in all cases he has put his own interests above that of 330 million plus people.

Thus, the only truly fair question is: How many people would have died, if he had taken the correct actions? I don't know the answer to that, but it is almost certainly 100,000 or more.

At this point, asking whether "is he responsible for 100,000 deaths, or 150,000 deaths?" starts to get absurd.

That is a real point of view, but I disagree with it. It seems to ignore the points I made, about trump's flaws - narcissist, sociopath, and more - that made him largely unable to 'do the right thing'.

They are *not* 'excuses' or 'justifications'. Yet they are different than someone *wanting* to do the wrong thing with killing a lot of people being a goal.

Look how seriously dysfunctional he is. In the debate with Biden, wanting to 'win', he said the sheriff in Portland had just called him and endorsed him. Immediately after the debate, the sheriff publicly said he had not and never would endorse trump. What has to be wrong with him, making a claim like that he'd know he'd get caught for in minutes?

The bottom line is, it seems to me, how badly he is unfit for public office, and how horribly damaging it is that we made the mistake of putting him in the presidency. But we should understand the situation, the reasons, his intent, not only the impact, as if there's no difference whether his intent was murder.

I don't think any of the motives you dismiss were the motive. His niece apparently explains why he couldn't respond as well.

 

[Craig234]

His statements, lie or not, belie Himself and his action to come quite often and thus mean a great deal to me. That is Trump's transparency. He is saying who He is and what He is going to do. Undermine the election, this nation, our democracy and that of the world. When Trump accuses people of treason, says to lock people up or cajoles supporters to beat people up, He means it. He wants that to happen. He wants that power. He wants to be Kim, Putin or the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. He is a pathological liar and practically incapable of telling the truth. Yet, is is often telegraphing the truth. Much of what He says most outlandish, he really means and is thus honest. I'd rather Trump's lies be true and His truth be lies.

Why are you capitalizing "Himself" and "He" like that?

That's something done for religious purposes in religious writing (reporting guidelines say not to to do it), but not for people.