Who Will be Our Next President?

I agree it may be necessary some times, and I'm glad you agree this isn't one of them.

That's a fair question, but the answer for me is an obvious "yes." We know wearing masks helps a great deal, we know he took too long to endorse them (and hasn't really done a very good job of it even since then). He implied they were wimpy or silly, he didn't require them at events and rallies (contact tracing suggests literally hundreds of people may have died from those rallies), and he's simply refused to answer questions about when he tested negatively, which means he put people in the White House around him in danger (which is why many of them have tested positive since).

We've seen people fight about mask-wearing as if it were a political thing. Making that even slightly political by hedging on the issue, himself, making it so this has become a sign of allegiance or signaling to some people, rather than a bipartisan responsibility, has surely done a lot of harm.

Yeah, that's silly. COVID was going to kill many people even under the best management. I'm convinced Trump is responsible for some level above the unavoidable number, whatever that is, but he's not personally responsible for all of them, no.

My argument isn't just that his priorities were wrong, but that I don't think he was even trying to make informed decisions. At every step, his actions are consistent with someone who thinks this thing is just another political issue he can reframe or talk past. It's kind of his whole deal, to do that. But it's a physical, immutable reality, and I'm not sure he's really grasped that.

If he were just being cautious in his language, it might be plausible to believe he was just trying to prevent panic. But saying it's just going to "go away" is well beyond that. There's no reason to say that unless he's a) totally ignorant or b) just saying whatever he thinks he needs to say in the moment to win a random argument with a reporter. You can say lots of things about it that downplay the terror or panic potential that don't come within a hundred miles of ridiculous stuff about it "miraculously" vanishing. He actually said that! I think that precludes all of the reasonable interpretations. It's pure wishcasting.

Right, but that's how this always seems to go with him: some whiff of a rumor, and it would be nice for him if the rumor is true...so he just mindlessly repeats the rumor. And when it turns out not to be true, he says "well, people were saying," as if that alone were reason enough for the President of the United States to just float the possibility, like he's some dude sitting outside a bus station just tellin' ya' what he heard. Nevermind that the doctors around him are telling him it's either not true or not at all reliable.

No, I am not upset about it being tasteless or inappropriate. I'm upset because we know a lot of people follow his lead and it costs lives when he denigrates basic safety precautions, even indirectly. I also don't think "that's who he is" is a defense of anything.

Correct, that is my point. I agree we cannot and should not force people to wear them. We should just make it obvious that wearing a mask is not a wimpy thing, not a concession, not someone restricting your freedoms, but something people should do to protect others. Protecting the weak is a sign of strength, and here because of a lot of macho posturing, we've got people acting like it's a weakness and turning it into a proxy political fight. Trump caused that, and could have easily prevented it.

That is very charitable. We have years of him basically repeating things because he WANTS them to be true, and not because they are. There's optimism, and then there's burying your head in the sand. And because the "optimism" is always what would happen to benefit him, personally, it seems clear that's the real motive here.

Look, I don't know the man's soul. I just know that he's an adult with a lot of power, and therefore it's on him if he's built up (over decades) the really awful habit of just repeating rumors because they would be useful to him, of believing any potential good news without questioning it (and worse, never going back and admitting he was wrong, which also makes it less likely he's just being "optimistic"). I assume he does it because it's served him well enough, but it doesn't serve us at all.

BTW, the race isn't called but that might be happening soon. When it does, gonna want to wind this whole thing down. Not sure there's a ton more to say, anyway. Just a heads-up.

I don't think we have to keep going. I don't think anything you say is ridiculous or flat out wrong. We have slightly different points of view like most people do. We both probably like giving people the benefit of the doubt, maybe I do it a little more.

But it's too much fun and we have the court cases coming. It's a very fascinating time. Play it by ear?

I don't have a hard and fast rule for this, but I do know the thread has spiraled a bit to tons of totally unrelated issues.

To be perfectly transparent, I didn't have any hope it wouldn't, but I hoped by asking for it, there'd be less of it. That worked for a bit, I guess. But we closed the giant massive "argue anything Trump related" threads before, and will have to again if this becomes the same thing. It should stay focused on the election itself mostly, I think.

At least wait until it's over, mainly so we can see Trumps implosion.

__________________

There's so much being said about possible issues with the voting that I'm not even following it that closely. I'd rather wait until the dust settles and we have a better picture of what's real. There is one thing I've heard from a couple of lawyer types that on the surface sounds like it could be problematic for the Democrats. Ok so even before Covid, the dems started their crusade all across the country to change state voting laws, and they were successful. The issue that I'm hearing, is that according to the constitution, this must be done only through state legislature, and it wasn't. If this is true, and it goes to the supreme court, I guess theoretically they could rule that the constitution is boss. That's all I know and it sounds interesting.

Come on buddy I can't take 8 more years of this.

Apparently I have to spell it out for you that I’m willing to concede that they’re not a white supremacist/white nationalist group if you can show proof that they aren’t. BTW, having a few non-white members is not proof. People can be racist against their own race and think that whites are superior. The leader saying they’re not white supremacist isn’t proof either because there’s this thing called lying. Proof is in what they actually do. I like how you conveniently ignore the violence against people of color in the Proud Boys rally video. But I guess kicking an unarmed student reporter when he’s literally already on the ground is perfectly okay as long as you love beer, “love your country,” and hate ANTIFA, right?

As to your claim that Trump immediately saying “who” after Wallace says Proud Boys could be consistent with him not knowing who they were but it could also easily be explained by him possibly not hearing or understanding Wallace the first time since everybody was talking over everybody else in that s***show of a debate.

__________________

No, it isn’t. At all.

But I don't really care about the proud boys. I'm sure they have some decent guys and some not so decent guys. Idk, I can only guess based on the videos I've seen in the last 12 hours or so. You're not sure of them and I'm not sure of them. Trump probably wasn't sure of them, although he did condemn them a couple of days later. My point still remains, Donald Trump has certainly and consistently for a long time denounced white supremacy. That's all I care about from what you said. I don't blame you for believing that before because it's a popular narrative. People believe things that they hear. There's all kinds of evidence that proves the contrary.

Absolutely, but it still has nothing to do with the only point I care about. And pardon me if I'm wrong, but it's a point you seem to be avoiding.

I definitely believe you, but I would say it's a reasonable question and a lot of people would give a different answer if they were being honest.

I don't like the proud boys, but when I hear one of their members say we love America and f**k Antifa, I like that part. I think we can all agree that there's some good and bad in a lot of things. When I hear that part, I rate it as good. I'm sure I would hear plenty from them that I would rate as bad. It's like Trump, we can question, criticize, and not like some things. That doesn't mean he is irredeemable in every way. We can be fair about it.

I think the issue is that "some good things" is a low bar to clear. If someone says certain people are sub-human but pizza is delicious, I don't say "well, some good, some bad."

Pizza is only delicious if there's no pineapple involved. At least that should be one thing that everybody can agree on.

I like to be careful in regards to condemning an entire group that has a lot of individual members, as long as the stated purpose of the group is not without a doubt bad, such as the Klan. Judging individuals by their group is dangerous. We see that it has been bad for black people, policemen, and many other people who associate with groups. At the same time, I'm not trying to defend the proud boys because I don't know much about them. I am just trying to be fair.

I remember a time when men wanted to be men. Now they just wanna be boys. I can’t support that.

I don't really follow that reasoning. Nobody thinks that condemning a group is condemning everything anyone in that group has ever said or done. It's sufficient to object to some of the core tenets of that group. And it's not really analogous to judging people for things they can't control, like skin color. They can control which groups to associate with, and should expect people to think more or less of them based on those choices.

More to the point, if this is your standard, almost any group can clear it. White nationalism is less noxious than white supremacy, to my mind, but it's still pretty bad. More ignorance than hatred, perhaps, but still very ignorant.

So then do you hate America or support ANTIFA? I’ve been told twice by an apparent authority that this is a reasonable question...

All this back and forth aside, if you look back and actually read my post you’ll see that my actual point was that his behavior around this subject has contributed to division within the Republican Party. Do you disagree with that?

No.