Wars are no longer called wars. The US is much more involved in the civilian slaughter happening in Yemen, we just don't call it a "war" to save face. Don't call this a victory for him, he'll rest in hell for the damage he's done here alone.

The Yemen thing is a war and called that. Just not a US war. Wikipedia has it as "Yemeni Civil War (2014–present)". "The conflict has been widely seen as an extension of the Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict." And then the US gets roped in as mates of the Saudis and enemies of the Iranians but it's not really a US thing and on the go before Donald got in there.

Yes, but we are not "involved" in the war, we are just _involved_ in the war. And I personally don't care if it was there when Trump took office, I care about what Trump did with it.

Trump's most underrated feat during his presidency. We will see how Biden fare on that, starting the count on two (?).

Like many things in a presidency; this is clearly partially - probably largely - guided by external developments. Sure, the president gets more say that anybody else, but I'm skeptical you can ascribe too much blame (or glory) to the outcomes here; at best you can look at the details, and see if in a given situation (ideally in retrospect) a president made the right choices.

I don't think Trump was tested in this area, and I don't think most wars were trivially the fault of the presidencies they were started in (sure, some exceptions like the most recent iraq may jump to mind). I mean, "just don't participate" is also equivalent to ceding influence to whoever feels like a bit of shelling would do them good, so that's not always a good choice - under the assumption that the US (and world) was well served by some measure of imposed order.

Course, maybe I'm misinterpreting who had agency in those situations - do you think it's largely presidents' at fault for for the post-WWII military engagements?

> Also: He didn't start yet another new war.

He didn't, but he did abandon the Kurds:

* https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trum...

* https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/yes-donald-trum...

Helping his Turkish buddy to be able to go after them.

He did however through incompetence and neglect see more Amerians die from Covid during his tenure than a whole lot of wars.

American death rates are similar to many Western European countries.

Lower than the UK and Spain, a bit higher than Italy and France.

Where are you getting those numbers? I am looking at https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ and see only Spain at a higher death per capita of the countries you listed. Even so, I don't think anyone is pointing to the UK and saying they did it right! And the US has a 20% higher per capita death rate than France, which I would call more than "a bit higher."

This link, which sources data from Johns Hopkins University.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deat...

I have no idea where the worldometers.info data is coming from.

Regardless of small differences, painting Covid-19 as a uniquely American problem stemming from American politics is silly. No countries have performed particularly well, despite trying everything from strict lockdowns to no response at all. East and South East Asia is outperforming, but that likely has more to do with past exposures and disease resistance than it is due to policy difference.

uh what, more likely because disease resistance? places like SK absolutely are doing well because of policy difference. Restricting access in, robust contact tracing, phased levels of lockdown that are clear and unified.

Some of these would never work in the US due to gov't structure and just the culture of people (privacy rights), but to discount American politics is a stretch. The entire debacle has been a war on misinformation from the top down.

If it is past exposures and disease resistence, how do you explain early spread in Wuhan? Why does Aus/NZ enjoy natural immunity but not Indonesia? Quarantines are effective against all infectious diseases and have been for centuries, why do you assume they were not effective in places like China and Vietnam? Where is the evidence that disease resistance plays any role?

> No countries have performed particularly well, despite trying everything from strict lockdowns to no response at all.

South Korea, Vietnam, Australia, Taiwan and New Zealand would seem to be examples countries that have minimises deaths.

You clearly responded before reading the entire comment.

Recently, France has been reporting about half as many cases as the entire USA despite its smaller population, and last I checked their testing wasn't even as widespread as in the US. Their numbers keep going up too. I wouldn't rely on their death rate remaining lower.

Which points to a terrible handling of COVID19 by Trump. Given the low population density of the US, the rate should be similar to other low density areas like e.g. Norway and Finland, yet it is more than 10x higher.

The US has numbers comparable to high density countries with extensive use of public transport. That is just terrible outcomes for a country where everybody drives and live far apart.

US is a mix of High and Low Density, you can not just take the national population and divide by land mass to come up with how things "should have gone" with covid

Nor is is really fair to even judge the Federal response to it at all, as under our system of government health care is largely a State matter not a federal one.

Remember the United States is a Republic of 50 States, joined together under a common Defense and Monetary system.

I don't for see large scale changes in policy under a Biden Presidency, you may get stronger messaging but power of the President is largely limited outside of dispersing money, and maybe requiring manufacturers to make certain things if there is a national shortage

Masks Mandates, Lock Downs, etc will still fall under the purview of State Governors as this how our constitution divides the powers of the government

What’s the point of a government or a monetary and defence system if it doesn’t help protect health? Surely keeping citizens alive and well is about the most basic role of a government?

You would have to provide a stronger definition of what you mean by "help protect health"

If you mean full on authoritarian rules where by the government arbitrarily decides by executive fiat who is allowed to work, leave their home, engage in commerce, or other wise gather in any way for months.

I would say no that is not a proper role of a government in a free society that has any respect for civil or human rights...

Cf https://covid.observer/per-million/#failed for a more comprehensive list.

Given New York City's very high rate, how would a person find out what the US w/o NYC compares?

US deaths: 234,034 US population: 330,052,960 Death rate per million: 709

US deaths minus NY: 200,248 NY population: 310,674,858 Death rate per million: 644

You'd have to remove NJ and Connecticut (the top three states) to make much of a difference.

Not just that, you'd be comparing with countries that also have major cities that are particularly badly affected and have not removed those figures from their total.

Thank you.

IMHO that means that if the U.S. actually had a federal response, if, you know, the Trump administration was actually trying to use the federal government to help the country, that our numbers would be lower.

Which, considering the wealth and expertise of the United States, makes a sort of sense.

At least those other nations are actually making an effort, and not denying science and spreading false, destructive information.

US is over twice Canada's mortality per capita. Trump did a deadly job in handling Corona.

I'm going to ask this in a sincere hope of getting an answer, regardless of how flip it sounds:

What specifically did Trump fail to do that you feel he should have done with regard to Covid? Keeping in mind that the US is a constitutional republic and does not have a lot of the same legal tools to compel people to do things en masse that other nations do.

Despair deaths will be off the charts as people are unable to return to work: we never should have locked down.

A lock down which is properly implemented can work, with the most recent success being Australia. I’m in New Zealand and we are likely to have open borders with other clear areas in the not-too-distant future. Time will tell what the cost in dollars and lives looks like with various strategies (or lack thereof), but so far NZ’s approach seems a good choice.

As a brown person we are thankful for not being bombed.

The Trump admin has performed more drone strikes than the Obama admin. The difference is transparency.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2019/5/8/18619206/under-do...

You must not live in Yemen.

Not yet he hasn't but don't count your chickens.

Isn't it congress that starts wars?

Only four times in the history of the country. So, effectively, no.

The meaning of Congress’ authority to declare war has been clarified (or changed) over time to mean that Congress provides oversight to the Executive branch’s proactive use of the military. Despite that, though, I think it is still fair to say that the US can effectively not go to war if Congress is not agreeable to it unofficially, as the US hasn’t ever had a situation where its president authorized military use that Congress substantially and seriously opposed.

See the War Powers Act to get an idea of the modern framework for governing war in the US: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

He lucked out that his actions in Iran didn't start one.

I guess it’s luck to a degree, but I regard it more as calling Iran’s bluff. There is no defense for their overt funding and leadership of destabilizing terrorism in the region (as evidenced). They have been to war before, it’s not “luck” that they didn’t decide to commit suicide this time. They cannot afford war, and had they started, fighting a coalition of the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and a few others would not be good for them, even if Russia or China decided to float them for a while. It would have resulted in a horrible, horrible outcome for the people of Iran, and say what you want about the Theocracy but it’s not that dumb.

Which is, for an US president, an almost unbelievable thing. Especially since he could have used the Iranian missile attacks on US bases to start a war there. He should get a peace Nobel prize for his actions towards world stability, which also includes his efforts to discuss with North Korea (official visit there!) and the arms sell to Taiwan.