Ask yourself this, could the current administration's response have been better given what was known at the time? If the answer is emphatically yes, then perhaps another person is better suited for the job.
Sometimes, I really hate the people in this country.
Anyone who comes in with good faith and actually objectively looks at the statistics and response can't possibly come to a different conclusion. The problem comes down to the "good faith" and "objective" parts of that sentence.
@not2b pointed out a number of very valid issues in the United States. No disagreement from me, these are obvious and very important problems.
But then followed it up with:
>> Now, all of this could be turned around quickly with good leadership that could rally the country behind a cause, but we chose someone who is committed to division...
"Now, all of this could be turned around quickly with good leadership" on its own could be interpreted as an abstract philosophical statement, but not when it is accompanied by "...but we chose someone..." implies a specific context (the last election), does it not?
In the last election, there were two choices: Trump and Clinton.
Trump was elected, leaving Clinton as the only other choice of a person who could have "turned this situation around quickly with good leadership that could rally the country behind a cause".
Is: "are you asserting that Clinton both could have and would have done so? If so, how do you know this?", requesting clarification and evidence of the claim, inappropriate in this context?
Is: "Were all of these issues nonexistent under prior administrations?" not appropriate, considering the claim was that a different choice could "turn this situation around quickly"? Is past performance of Presidents not relevant to the epistemic soundness of a claim that something is not just possible, but quick?
I'm thinking: perhaps turning things around in a country of 300 million people of vastly different cultures and ideologies is a bit more complicated than is appreciated by some forum commentators. Just an idea.
> Ask yourself this, could the current administration's response have been better given what was known at the time? If the answer is emphatically yes, then perhaps another person is better suited for the job.
Of course, just look around at other countries. There are surely thousands of people in the Unites States that could have handled this situation better, but we are only allowed to vote for the candidates that are undemocratically offered. And let's not forget, an election isn't about on issue, like "who would handle a pandemic best?". The reality is, each voter is (or should be) considering many thousands of variables, many of which have unknown values and all sorts of messy stuff.
The notion that ~"because President<A> is handling individual issue <x> poorly, therefore it logically follows that Candidate<Y> was the better choice for President" is not strongly logical. The answers to questions like this (or, what the hell is even going on, at any level of significant complexity) are actually not known - it just doesn't seem like it. I happen to believe that this phenomenon may actually play a major role in the underlying cause of the problems themselves.
We, as a country, screwed the handling of this. It isn't just one person. It is the way our entire system works. How do we fix it?
With great power (like presidency), comes great responsibility (like properly leading the country through a global pandemic) and with great responsibility comes great criticism where said responsibility isn't followed through.
They're not getting downvoted for a political statement. They're getting downvoted by implying that someone else wouldn't do a better job than probably the worst possible response to Covid.
Objectively, the response we've had from the leadership of the country has been terrible, and the effects are evident when you look at # of cases. Also objectively, any other response would have been better. Obviously, I can't tell with absolute certainty what other leaders would have done, but I can assure you it'd have been better than what we have now.
To say otherwise is ignoring the current state of the country and the response that has resulted in said state.
Technically, I'm being downvoted for asking two questions that challenge someone else's political statement (that aligns quite nicely with the general politics of HN).
> I really wish the parent comment kept out the last bit because the conversation then devolves to red/blue, left/right, white/black.
Me too, I completely agreed with the first part. I have this thing about about people dropping dimensions of reality and pretending they are irrelevant, or predicting the outcome of events on parallel dimensions of our universe, and stating those predictions as if they are facts. I consider this sort of rhetoric as part of the problem, but most people seem to overwhelmingly prefer it nowadays, provided the proper claims are made of course.
> How do we fix it?
This seems like the important question to me as well. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be a very popular topic of discussion.
This is subjective and necessarily highly speculative.
> I despise her but to think that she wouldn’t have been better at handling the pandemic response than Trump is delusional.
Predicting or thinking (about) that is perfectly fine and reasonable. Mistaking subsequent predictions for conclusive facts is what is actually delusional. There are many examples of such delusional behavior on HN every day: mind reading, future predicting (and stating the results as facts), you name it. I think it is fairly true to say that conspiracy theorists (for example) and "smart" people differ more in degree than in kind, although we do not have the means (or ambition, or epistemic skills) to determine the degree to which this is true.
Most of the time, what we consider to be true, is actually unknown.
In leadership not making a decision until you have 100% of the facts, and truly know something to be a fact, will kill your ability to be effective.
Trump didn’t make a decision, instead he called the virus a hoax and prevented experts from providing insight to a situation where we didn’t have all the facts.
On the next sentence I’m going to write, no I don’t have 100% of the facts but I can certainly make an informed statement.
Trump fucked this country up and Clinton would’ve had a better response to this pandemic - regardless of who you identify as how could you not accept this.
Were all of these issues nonexistent under prior administrations?
Or, as for turning it around, are you asserting that Clinton both could have and would have done so? If so, how do you know this?