LIVE: First 2020 Presidential Debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden

Trump told white supremists to "stand by".

He would not say a word against them..

 

You are right, and it’s not splitting hairs. Other than honorable and dishonorable discharges are very different things.

 

Just watched the debate... Trump 2020, four more years, 100%!

 

Except the proud boys have members of all races. Fail.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Trump told white supremists to "stand by".

He would not say a word against them..

I see you couldn't refute nor deny my post...

 

He told them to stand down....

 

Trump, "Stand back and stand by." Slightly different.

 

True, that.

 

Guarantee there will be White supremacists shooting folks on election day because Trump encouraged them. Gun stores are happy after last night because they will be clearing all their inventory very quickly.

 

Based on Trump not having a plan to replace Obamacare after the American Health Care Act of 2017 was so unpopular he couldn't get a Republican Senate to support it.

The problem with every health care plan that guarantees affordable rates for those with preexisting conditions is the cost of covering millions of mostly older, sick people. Obama said the ACA would cover everyone at lower rates when he knew adding millions of sick and/or poor people to the system was going to drive up rates.

 

He said, "Stand back and stand by."

Okay, whatever the technical military term for Biden's discharge is, being a crackhead is not considered "honorable" to the military and is grounds for dismissal.

 

That's because unlike Blacks -- whom according to Biden are all alike -- Hispanic-Americans have a wide variety of cultures and ideologies and political affiliations and so they do NOT represent a singular voting black. Thus the Left's media and leadership keeps failing to manipulate their emotions and loyalties as a unit. They really do not know what to do with or even try-on in regards to Hispanic-Americans.

 

LOL, what?!? You mean to say that 93% peaceful protesters will go about assaulting, harassing, threatening, destroying, etc, like they have been for months.... ONCE TRUMP IS REELECTED.

 

HAHA, the fact that the proud boys are not a white supremacists group because they accept all races absolutely refutes your 100% false claim. Thanks for playing though.

 

I agree with many of your statements and I've praised the President for these good things as well, in other posts. Not all of them, though. Let's look at one by one.

Shortage of PPE: not true. We were promised 300 million N95s by September; we have 87 million. Still short.

Ventilators: True. However (and this is not to blame Trump because it wasn't known at the time) it turns out that we don't really need them a lot. New treatment protocols are recommending that we stay away from invasive ventilation as much as possible as they seem very harmful in Covid-19 unlike SARS and MERS.

Shut down borders - absolutely not true. Our borders were never shut down. What happened was travel restrictions, and if you look at the executive orders, they have a page-long list of exceptions. Really shut down borders is what Argentina and Uruguay did: no flights of any kind, borders entirely closed, the only people allowed in are their own citizens if they are being medically repatriated or come in via official rescue flights (the only kind still allowed) and if they do come in, they get 21 days of mandatory quarantine. That's what shut borders are, not Trump's travel restrictions (which were porous and failed to be coupled with mandatory quarantine).

Testing - it is true that we finally got it right; it took a good while, with early mistakes. But then the Trump administration has been pressuring the CDC to curtail testing of contacts of confirmed cases, which CDC officials have denounced on the record, not anonymously. That's not right and is one of the things that really turned me off from Trump when I was still considering voting for him. Obviously the intention is to play down the number of positive cases in order for Trump to look politically better, and containment be damned, because the most important people to be tested in order to limit contagion are precisely the contacts of positive cases.

Task Force briefings - a good initiative but Trump also used it to tout ineffective treatments and never took advantage of the opportunity to consistently advocate for masks. Much the opposite. Recently he berated a reporter for wearing a mask and praised another one for not wearing one. Yesterday his position on masks was iffy, too.

Government-recommended strategy for reopening - true but then literally hours after Trump endorsed it he went to Twitter to say "Liberate Michigan" and "Liberate" two other states. I understand his opposition to what the governors were doing but the message still is, "I don't really believe in phased opening." It's confusing and misleading.

Weekly calls with governors - Good, but Trump did make a difference between Republican and Democrat governors and there were issues like his son saying that the federal stockpile was for the feds and shouldn't be sent to states, actually pitching the states against each other to compete for PPE from external sources. This for example resulted in states purchasing KN95 masks from China to send to their hospitals, and just recently a paper was published testing these masks against the NIOSH standards and 70% of them failed the tests and were deemed dangerous for healthcare workers. The feds could have coordinated this a lot better and could have used the Defense Production Act more energetically.

Hospital ships and makeshift hospitals - True. Great initiative that I have praised elsewhere.

Work with companies for faster vaccines - Very true. Freaking brilliant. The best part of what Trump did, and I lavishly praised him for it. Most likely this public-private partnership wouldn't go as well and as fast in a Democratic administration and Trump not taking a no for an answer when he was repeatedly told it couldn't be done, is his best feature ever in his management of this pandemic. High praise for that.

The bottom line is, I give credit where credit is due, and I criticize where there is room for criticism. The administration had positive and negative aspects. If we put aside the Warp Speed initiative for a moment though, I see the balance as mostly negative. It is true that the Warp Speed my tilt the balance to positive, if it does result in fast distribution of safe and effective vaccines with a high acceptance rate among the population, which remains to be seen. Some of the mismanagement may actually negate the acceptance part as polls are showing that people are having trouble trusting a vaccine touted by Trump.

That's what you get when you tout the useless HCQ, injected bleach, UV lights inside... when you are confusing and misleading regarding masks and reopening... when you put pressure on the CDC and the FDA... (like the convalescent plasma fiasco), people start not trusting you. Trust is an important capital in a crisis like this. Good leaders inspire trust. So the jury is still out on this. If Trump does succeed in turning the table on the vaccine front and a safe and effective vaccine is truly approved (not just approved out of political pressure) and it is fairly distributed (to both red and blue states) then I'll say the balance is positive. But not yet; it remains to be seen. I root for it. I root for him to succeed with the vaccines.

By the way the projection of 2 million deaths was the worst case-scenario in one epidemiological model (the British one). This is not to be understood as a true projection of the inevitable total. For it to happen it would have to be without ANY containment measures, even the spontaneous ones by the population (such as being afraid of the virus and not going out to restaurants etc., and wearing masks). The model clearly stated that, but still, people run with this number to say that the administration avoided 1.8 million deaths.

If people want to compare our 205,000 and counting with the worst case scenario, then they need to compare it with the best case scenario too, to be fair. The best one talked of 61,000 deaths and the contagion being completely extinguished with zero cases by August 6. That didn't happen either, did it?

Let's say we end up with 361,000 deaths... then it would also be fair to say that the administration failed to contain it at 61,000 and ended up with 300,000 excess deaths, right? Two can play this game. The truth of course is in the middle, the truth is that neither the comparison to the worst nor the comparison to the best is fair. It irks me that people look at the worst case scenario for comparison but conveniently forget to compare to the best case scenario too. Epidemiological models are always given in a range of best to worst. Don't look at just one half of the equation.

And don't forget, the 205,000 is not over yet. The end tally is likely to be a lot bigger than that, and also don't forget that the Spanish Flu had three waves, and the second and third were MUCH worse than the first one. Shout "Victory" once it is truly over, lest you'll look like the "Mission Accomplished" banner.

 

Exactly. I do not know why you would expect any different. Politics has became too much a part of pop culture. When that happens to anything it becomes absurd.

Folks need to realize that government is not the answer to everything and these elected officials are on the take. Biden has been at it for years.

 

Would those White supremacist be the same people who have putting on a black face disguise and rioting and burning across the country?

 

Folks in other countries be like “Don’t bring your shitty government to us”!

 

What Republican leaders don't simply articulate, for some reason, is that conservatives do not want federal government-run healthcare. There is no right-wing "government replacement" for ACA, and there never will be, because the right believes in free market competition. Republicans need to just explain that instead of looking like deer caught in the headlights when Democrats ask "What is the [government] replacement?"

States are individually in charge of healthcare. If the federal government is going to interfere with the health or insurance of Americans, then they need to pass interstate legislation to allow people to purchase insurance from across state lines. Then if an Idaho insurer is $100/month, Texas has a $200/month plan, Maryland has $400/month and California has $500/month, then consumers flock to the Idaho policies. That puts competitive pressure on other insurers to offer lower and more competitive prices.

Trump has a healthcare plan which is solid. It's just not a government-run healthcare plan.

 

One can only contrast the Kennedy/Nixon debate with the one last night to see the decline of the country.

 

You mean as opposed to radical and hate filled leftists routinely burning parts of cities, looting, mugging and murdering for month after month with the blessings of Dem Party mayors or governors? So get back to us when the Right actually does do something like that on a similar massive and constant scale.

 

I know he was, so what? Biden acknowledged it. The point being made that Biden "forgot" that Hunter was dishonorably discharged because Biden is demented, is not true though, because Hunter was never dishonorably discharged so what Biden said in the debate was correct and no symptom of dementia. That was my ONLY point on this.

Then I added a second point, that I don't for a second believe in your conspiracy theory. It is the prevailing practice to discharge administratively someone who gets a positive drug test, and it doesn't raise to dishonorable discharge so it is not out of the ordinary at all and it is not a hint that corruption and undue influence was happening. If Hunter Biden had tested positive and NOT kicked out, then you'd have a point.

So what did you want it to happen? Should the Army have slapped Hunter with a dishonorable discharge without him incurring in the more serious offenses that warrant that, such as physically assaulting a superior officer or running from combat or deserting? Based on what? What exactly do you think was wrong with administratively discharging him due to a failed drug test?

Be specific. Tell me what the Army should have done, and why?

They did what they do for all soldiers. Use drugs, get administratively kicked out. Hunter Biden's conduct had no grounds for dishonorable discharge whatsoever.

And again, you're all trying to smear Joe Biden for his son. His son is not the candidate. Biden has a flawed son, who accepts a job for which he is not qualified, who uses drug, who was involved in a paternity dispute. I consider Hunter Biden to be a piece of s.... but that only smears Biden as far as parenting is concerned. But he is not running for Father, he is running for President of the United States. And it's not like he failed all his children. He got one bad apple in his family, which happens in many families, but also fathered a flawless individual of the highest quality like Beau Biden, who unfortunately had a premature death by cancer.

 

Ew. Stop.

 

Gotta say, I'm kinda disappointed in forum conservatives criticizing Trump in this debate. Go to your physician to get your estrogen levels checked. Not even kidding.