3 ms·

Likely because having the respect of the rest of the world or electing Hillary Clinton in 2016 would have made very little difference in the face of (a) a pande

• PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
  You're right that the president elected in 2016 wouldn't by themselves have been able to stop a pandemic or address major structural economic problems. But sometimes, just basic competence can go a long way, and although I didn't expect to agree with many of her policies, Clinton would almost certainly have brought that to the White House and the rest of the administrative branch.
• mnm1 7y ago
  So you think Clinton would have called the coronavirus a hoax and actively worked to delay and reduce testing while it spread uncontrolled? Fascinating. I think things can always get worse, but at this point, the federal government's response to this led by vice president dumb and president dumber is pretty close to rock bottom. Hard to get worse than actively encouraging the spreading of the virus while holding back almost all testing and preparedness. Even a week can make a huge difference and the federal government has done little in almost two months. I have a hard time believing a different president wouldn't be more effective in the face of this pandemic. Hell, a fucking dog as a president would be better than a president that actively works to worsen outcomes like the current one. That is criminal, but of course, nothing new for him.