Things probably would have been much better if someone else was elected
Yesterday (Saturday) in The Washington PostIn response to:
This Wouldn't have happened, if Hillary had won
By Max Boot
March 21, 2020 at 6:35 p.m. EDT
The coronavirus is the most foreseeable disaster in history — and so is President Trump’s inability to rise to the occasion.
There were scattered warnings before Pearl Harbor and 9/11 of what was to come. But nothing like this. My Post colleagues report that throughout January and February, the U.S. intelligence community was warning Trump that the pandemic was going to hit America. “The system was blinking red,” one official said.
But Trump wasn’t paying attention. “It will all work out well,” he blithely tweeted on Jan. 24 while credulously thanking Chinese President Xi Jinping for “working very hard to contain the Coronavirus.” (A British study suggests China could have eliminated 95 percent of its cases if it had acted three weeks earlier, when a doctor first called attention to the epidemic in Wuhan.)
Because of Trump’s negligence, the United States lost two months of response time — precious days that should have been used to test the population, produce more N95 masks and ventilators, and build new hospital beds. This past week, the Pentagon finally announced that a Navy hospital ship would be heading to New York — but it will take at least two weeks to get ready. Why wasn’t the deployment order given sooner? Even now, with the crisis upon us, Trump hesitates to use his full authority to order wartime production of ventilators needed to keep thousands of patients alive.
Utterly lacking in empathy, Trump is incapable of rallying a shell-shocked nation. When asked on Friday, “What do you say to Americans who are watching you right now who are scared?,” Trump launched into a tirade against the reporter who asked the question. Like the snake-oil salesman that he is, his version of reassurance is to tout miracle cures that have not been verified by medical science.
I weep in anger and frustration imagining what might have been if Hillary Clinton — a sane, sensible adult — had won. We couldn’t have avoided the coronavirus, but we could have ameliorated its effects. We could be South Korea (102 deaths) rather than Italy (4,825 deaths and counting).
It was precisely because we were afraid of how Trump would mishandle his weighty responsibilities that some “Never Trump” conservatives supported Clinton in 2016. On May 8, 2016, I wrote in the Los Angeles Times: “There has never been a major party nominee in U.S. history as unqualified for the presidency. The risk of Trump winning, however remote, represents the biggest national security threat that the United States faces today.”
I do not cite my earlier article — one of dozens I wrote in 2015 and 2016 warning in ever-more-urgent tones of the danger of electing Trump — as a way of patting myself on the back for prescience. It took no foresight to predict that Trump would be a catastrophe in a crisis. It was close to the conventional wisdom. Yet nearly 63 million voters chose to disregard such warnings.
There were many reasons Trump won. Ironically, one of the most oft-cited was the desire to blow everything up, because Trump voters were convinced that things couldn’t get any worse than they were in 2016. As they shelter in their homes and the economy grinds to a halt, I wonder if perhaps they now realize how good they had it under President Barack Obama?
This Wouldn't have happened, if Hillary had won
By Max Boot
March 21, 2020 at 6:35 p.m. EDT
The coronavirus is the most foreseeable disaster in history — and so is President Trump’s inability to rise to the occasion.
There were scattered warnings before Pearl Harbor and 9/11 of what was to come. But nothing like this. My Post colleagues report that throughout January and February, the U.S. intelligence community was warning Trump that the pandemic was going to hit America. “The system was blinking red,” one official said.
But Trump wasn’t paying attention. “It will all work out well,” he blithely tweeted on Jan. 24 while credulously thanking Chinese President Xi Jinping for “working very hard to contain the Coronavirus.” (A British study suggests China could have eliminated 95 percent of its cases if it had acted three weeks earlier, when a doctor first called attention to the epidemic in Wuhan.)
Because of Trump’s negligence, the United States lost two months of response time — precious days that should have been used to test the population, produce more N95 masks and ventilators, and build new hospital beds. This past week, the Pentagon finally announced that a Navy hospital ship would be heading to New York — but it will take at least two weeks to get ready. Why wasn’t the deployment order given sooner? Even now, with the crisis upon us, Trump hesitates to use his full authority to order wartime production of ventilators needed to keep thousands of patients alive.
Utterly lacking in empathy, Trump is incapable of rallying a shell-shocked nation. When asked on Friday, “What do you say to Americans who are watching you right now who are scared?,” Trump launched into a tirade against the reporter who asked the question. Like the snake-oil salesman that he is, his version of reassurance is to tout miracle cures that have not been verified by medical science.
I weep in anger and frustration imagining what might have been if Hillary Clinton — a sane, sensible adult — had won. We couldn’t have avoided the coronavirus, but we could have ameliorated its effects. We could be South Korea (102 deaths) rather than Italy (4,825 deaths and counting).
It was precisely because we were afraid of how Trump would mishandle his weighty responsibilities that some “Never Trump” conservatives supported Clinton in 2016. On May 8, 2016, I wrote in the Los Angeles Times: “There has never been a major party nominee in U.S. history as unqualified for the presidency. The risk of Trump winning, however remote, represents the biggest national security threat that the United States faces today.”
I do not cite my earlier article — one of dozens I wrote in 2015 and 2016 warning in ever-more-urgent tones of the danger of electing Trump — as a way of patting myself on the back for prescience. It took no foresight to predict that Trump would be a catastrophe in a crisis. It was close to the conventional wisdom. Yet nearly 63 million voters chose to disregard such warnings.
There were many reasons Trump won. Ironically, one of the most oft-cited was the desire to blow everything up, because Trump voters were convinced that things couldn’t get any worse than they were in 2016. As they shelter in their homes and the economy grinds to a halt, I wonder if perhaps they now realize how good they had it under President Barack Obama?
Comments (40)
Then people like you might have something useful to post jim. Most likely not, since it seems we've had something to fight it with since 1820, 1897, 1932, 1960's, some where in there. Apparently there's been research and refinements for discovery and treatment through the decades. 1897 might be the most significant.
Nothing was good under obozo and no one wants him back. Even in my "union" shop people are literally saying "OH GOD NO!!! NOT BIDEN!!". Of course they say more than that statement but that was a part among some of the first. Only about a 1/4 or so would be dumb enough to bother with sanders.
Trump actually had plans and has been able to primarily deliver. That takes a lot of lies and do nothings away from future campaign trails. We'd have been worse if any one else would have won. There would have been less jobs and ecomical standings to get back too just for starters. Reporst indicate it could quickly boom back bigger and brighter. That probably doesn't make your news sources though.
He just wasn't allowed to transport his laptop with the documents to China.
So, he was arrested for doing so.
It is not healthy to look backwards when trying to move forward.
We should all focus and vote in the up coming election.
That's why there is a M - before that part of my statement. However, now that you mention it, its a further indication of Trump's overall inadequacy.
i don't understand how not cooking is relevant
Again, quit harping on this. It was a response to Mark. HE brought up Trump being a chef.
Can't actually stop an outbreak if there's going to be one.
However, a good leader would have better prepared the nation for it.
That's been their only focus. It was then and who knows what they're concocting now. It's NEVER been the nation and citizens.
i'm going to harp because i can
That's been their only focus
Hillery's no Snow White
Another -- "The Queen Of Warmongers" would've embarked the U.S. on military adventurism ala W. Bush.
Whatever --
One of those speculations is no more nor less "valid" then the other -- nor any of several others.
We're all free to speculate.
BUT ... History does not reveal its alternatives
Can any one explain why the demonrats and media aren't screaming about having open borders now?
Me thinks the lady protests WAY too much.
Suppose some one wants to hurt another country on purpose silently and personally? There are many ways to do that with out proper security measures in place. We see some of it with security measures.
Nope. When it comes to taxes, economy, security, and more; you can only trust a demonrat to make them worse at tax payer expense.
but, i will defend a victim regardless of their party.
If it's a hostile environment, the boss is either in control of that, or to blame for that.
The boss have set the stage for the new worker to be helped and the new worker should have been told that if he had any problems, that the bosses door was open to guidance. If any problems arose, the boss should have addressed it properly. The boss allowed themself not to be in control and a toxic environment to go on. Poor leadership !
However, the work environment should be managed, so that the workers can be productive.
The environment should be conducive towards productivity.
If it is not, it is due to poor leadership. The leader is ultimately responsible.
How many democrat techies, stand six feet apart in his house, did it take to open him a skype account?
The highs are higher and the lows are not only higher than the others, but not lower than the start of the time segment too. I'll have to look into that. Thanks.
Macro: Systematic Diversified strategies have investment processes typically as function of mathematical, algorithmic and technical models, with little or no influence of individuals over the portfolio positioning. Strategies which employ an investment process designed to identify opportunities in markets exhibiting trending or momentum characteristics across individual instruments or asset classes. Strategies typically employ quantitative process which focus on statistically robust or technical patterns in the return series of the asset, and typically focus on highly liquid instruments and maintain shorter holding periods than either discretionary or mean reverting strategies. Although some strategies seek to employ counter trend models, strategies benefit most from an environment characterized by persistent, discernable trending behavior. Systematic Diversified strategies typically would expect to have no greater than 35% of portfolio in either dedicated currency or commodity exposures over a given market cycle.
Until then, timing the bottom of the S&P looks like a larger return.
to previous levels. It will return eventually. As with many things, 'timing is everything'.