25 thoughts on “How we got here.

    1. I know it is water over the dam at this point. For the most part it is important to focus on how we can get through this crisis no matter how we got here.

      But history cannot be rewritten. We have to learn that our response was not adequate for a variety of reasons so as to be better prepared for future events like this.

      If such recollection exposes failures at the top, that is both a price and a step in the right direction.

      Think in terms of the 2008 financial crisis. While Obama was scrambling to prevent a total collapse his naysayers were in full, brutal attack mode. For that matter you still blame Obama for not handling the crisis well enough to suit your way of thinking. Every Democrat back through Clinton was blamed for this and that, overlooking the simple fact that, as Greenspan lamented, the financial market can not regulate itself.

      So there is certainly room to keep alive the why’s and wherefore’s of our administration’s behavior up until last week.

      If the opinion is wrong on dates, actions, inactions, tweets and statements then they should be corrected. I don’t see those errors. If the opinions are contrary to yours, then that is subject for debate.

      IMHO

      Liked by 4 people

    2. @Tabor

      The Atlantic is not exactly a deep reach, and I didn’t read any “hate” feeding material presented, just some basic facts.

      Well, I guess that could appear to be hate feeding given the circumstances…

      Liked by 2 people

    1. I read it. It’s garbage: a real tour de force of low-brow mind reading, fallacious inference and gratuitous Trump bashing.

      Like

      1. Where is the opinion wrong in its listing of statements, actions and inactions by the administration?

        It is an opinion. So was Trump calling the Washington governor a snake. Do you think that was helpful at the time when Washington was the hardest hit by COVID 19?

        Or should we ignore that too? That was low brow and gratuitous and totally unnecessary.

        Liked by 3 people

      2. Once again, Mr. Roberts dismisses ANY article as “garbage” if it doesn’t feed into what he wants to believe. He is as bad as Mr. Trump in not wanting the facts, just things that make him look good.

        Liked by 2 people

      3. RE: “Where is the opinion wrong in its listing of statements, actions and inactions by the administration?”

        LOW-BROW MIND READING: “[S]oon after the coronavirus outbreak emerged in China, the rest of the world began to regard it as a threat to public health, while le Trump has seen it as a public-relations problem.”

        Notice the author doesn’t accuse Trump of treating the pandemic as a PR problem, but commits the far greater psychological error of seeing it that way.

        FALLACIOUS INFERENCE: “Neither the tide of pestilence sweeping the nation nor the economic calamity that will follow was inevitable. They are the predictable outcomes of the president’s [inherent nature].”

        The inference is that the president, and only president is responsible for the calamity to come. Never mind the virus itself, China’s bungling of the outbreak or our own CDC/FDA failures with respect to testing.

        GRATUITOUS TRUMP BASHING: “The president of the United States is a menace to public health.”

        This, of course, is the assertion of opinion the rest of the article attempts to substantiate. That the statement is debatable is a given, but notice how undisciplined and exaggerated it is. It is pitifully unserious to accuse the president of such a capacious and generalized failing when the topic at hand is only his handling of a single emergency.

        Notice, too, that being a “menace” is a far greater failing than committing mere mistakes. A more disciplined writer would have shifted focus from the president’s personal flaws to the presidents deeds, thusly: “The president of the United States mishandled the response to coronavirus.”

        Like

        1. @Roberts

          LOW BROW MIND READING
          You always make the accusation of mind reading when you do not like the inference that a reasonable person would make from the evidence. Trump started out by TREATING the virus as a PR problem (see for example his remarks on the cruise ship and his numerous attempts to minimize the threat even when he knew how bad it would be) so it is a fair inference that he VIEWED it as a PR problem. No mind reading required.

          FALLACIOUS INFERENCE
          As for inferring the extent of the damage caused by Trump’s failures, we can compare ourselves to other countries to gain insight. We and South Korea, for example, had our first cases and deaths at about the same time. They have confined the outbreak by immediate action. We didn’t. And, you do not get to excuse Trump because of failings at the CDC or the FDA. They are BOTH under the control of DJT and have been for 3 years now. As the sign on the desk of HST went – “The Buck Stops Here.”

          GRATUITOUS TRUMP BASHING
          “Gratutuitous” means . . .”uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted.”
          Sadly the statement that “Trump is a menace to public health” is entirely called for with good reason and is warranted. Leaving aside his many past failures on the pandemic, even after deciding to play the role of “war President” he has continued to do harm with his lies and exaggerations.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. RE: “so it is a fair inference that he VIEWED it as a PR problem.”

            That’s an inference, all right, but not a fair one. To speak to the nation about the outbreak is an exercise in PR no matter what.

            RE: “we can compare ourselves to other countries to gain insight.”

            Yes we can, but there are limits to how much insight we can gain by doing so. Other countries are, after all, not us.

            RE: “Sadly the statement that ‘Trump is a menace to public health is entirely called for with good reason and is warranted.”

            So you say, but I don’t find that to be true for the reasons given.

            Like

          2. @Roberts

            Sure, you can try to make counter arguments if you think you can. The real point I am making is that your first statement . . .

            “It’s garbage: a real tour de force of low-brow mind reading, fallacious inference and gratuitous Trump bashing.”

            is not actually persuasive. Maybe even a pretty good example of what it is decrying.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. RE: ” The real point I am making is that your first statement . . .is not actually persuasive.”

            Apparently not, since I was asked to explain it. That you find the explanation unpersuasive is a matter of big indifference to me. My orinal purpose was only to validate Dr. Tabor’s comment by saying, in effect, “I had the same impression.” So, mission accomplished.

            Like

      4. RE: “It is an opinion.”

        Yet again, I am compelled to point out that being an opinion is a distinction without a difference. Some opinions cannot be reconciled with one another, but all opinions are capable of being objectively false, fallacious and wrong.

        Like

        1. So his facts are not in dispute, just the inferences that form his opinion.

          “Never mind the virus itself, China’s bungling of the outbreak or our own CDC/FDA failures with respect to testing.”

          Two observation, neither solely mine, nor new:

          China’s bungling was in large part to hide the political and occurring economic impacts. I submit that Trump’s downplay of the virus and it’s spread in the US, along with his media and political supporters up until last Monday was for the same reason.

          Second, I am of the belief that after 3 years and 2 months, the administration owns the actions of a CDC/FDA under his appointed supervisors. If this had occurred the first year, we can certainly allow for some slack. Passing off responsibility, was in a word, irresponsible. Take any CEO in the private sector. After a transition, some economic cycles, he is the person who must shoulder the blame.
          Who else? And if the company was troubled, as Trump asserted the government was, that was the job of the CEO to straighten out. In other words, being president doesn’t mean you only take credit for the good stuff.

          Finally, I find this accusation curious:

          “Notice the author doesn’t accuse Trump of treating the pandemic as a PR problem, but commits the far greater psychological error of seeing it that way.”

          If Trump did not commit the “psychological error of seeing it that way”, you seem to say that it was purposeful rather than human error. I would submit that is the more egregious reason.

          The author daws his opinion from the way he interprets the facts. You have your opinion about the same set of facts.

          That is what public debate is all about.

          IMHO

          Liked by 2 people

          1. RE: “So his facts are not in dispute, just the inferences that form his opinion.”

            I didn’t say that. My phrases, “low-brow mind reading, fallacious inference and gratuitous Trump bashing” are criticisms of the writer’s argument, not his conclusions.

            RE: “If Trump did not commit the ‘psychological error of seeing it that way’, you seem to say that it was purposeful rather than human error. I would submit that is the more egregious reason.”

            It may be (the more egregious reason), but the article isn’t about Trump’s psychology. The writer doesn’t offer a psychological analysis. Hence, the distinction between state of mind, which the writer has no capacity to know, and material deeds, which are a matter of record.

            RE: “The author daws his opinion from the way he interprets the facts.”

            Obviously. That’s how we know the author is foolish.

            Like

    1. @BobR

      Now I see your problem.
      You think an ugly label is all you need to refute an opinion piece you do not agree with.

      Uh, nope.

      Here is a better approach . . .
      Identify which facts in the article are not true.
      Provide evidence to refute them.
      Describe how the opinions derived from those facts do not logically follow.

      Liked by 1 person

  1. What’s truly hilarious is the liberals think they know better and have all the answers. Fact is, no matter what Trump does, they wouldn’t be satisfied. What’s really happening is opposing political parties trying claim they were the savior at election time. It’s a bunch of political garbage and this site is far from short of liberal trash talk. Get real people. We all know you hate Trump but time to STFU….

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s