6 ms·

What horrible things happened because of the policies of the first trump presidency? COVID response seems like the biggest mistake, but that was a never before

What horrible things happened because of the policies of the first trump presidency? COVID response seems like the biggest mistake, but that was a never before seen global pandemic, and it isn't clear to me that anyone else in office could have handled it differently.

SpaceNoodled 2y ago
Spanish flu never happened in your timeline?
whalesalad 2y ago
stacking our court with conservative justices, stacking other courts with his appointees who are already working to throw out his criminal cases. the rollback of roe. it's a very fucking slippery slope and everyone is too concerned with "but muh gas prices!" to think critically about the macro situation.
- valval 2y ago
  What makes you think people haven’t thought about those things the same as you or more, and still disagree? I think every little life saved is an absolute victory, and many people (as demonstrated) share my sentiment.
  - whalesalad 2y ago
    That is an issue. You posses religious conditioning that makes you believe this. If you disagree with abortion that is fine, but your opinion/stance should not be projected on everyone else in the country. The problem with this situation is religious folks are so brainwashed they can't even comprehend a situation where "live and let live" is possible, because you all think that your way is right and everyone else is wrong.
    - bigstrat2003 2y ago
      > That is an issue. You posses religious conditioning that makes you believe this. Abortion is not a religious issue, it is an ethical issue. Some religious people are fine with abortion, some atheists oppose it. > If you disagree with abortion that is fine, but your opinion/stance should not be projected on everyone else in the country. The problem with this situation is religious folks are so brainwashed they can't even comprehend a situation where "live and let live" is possible, because you all think that your way is right and everyone else is wrong. This argument is a completely unworkable argument and I have no idea why people think it will hold water. Abortion opponents believe that abortion is literal murder. You can't simply go "it's fine if you don't want to murder, but you shouldn't stop other people from murdering". I understand you disagree with the idea that abortion is murder, but you need to take that idea on directly rather than trying to paper it over and say "you need to live and let live".
      - whalesalad 2y ago
        > Abortion is not a religious issue, it is an ethical issue. Says you. I see nothing ethically wrong with abortion. Virtually every species of animal is known to kill their own young from time to time. Why should humans be held to a different standard? The earth is already overpopulated as-is.
        noworriesnate 2y ago
        Just because people ate their own children during a siege doesn't mean it's morally acceptable.
        svieira 2y ago
        Also a large number of animals cannibalize the weak (chickens, for example). Now, I presume that you hold humans to a different standard for that behavior - why?
        whalesalad 2y ago
        I don’t. Humans are animals, too.
    - nixdev 2y ago
      > You posses religious conditioning that makes you believe this. > but your opinion/stance should not be projected on everyone else in the country. Wow. Talk about projection. Roe, a case where the woman involved later admitted to lying about being raped, that case, the repeal of that case moves the opinion/stance back to the states, where it should be. > they can't even comprehend a situation where "live and let live" is possible Funny someone in the "I NEED TO KILL MY BABY" crowd would write something like this. You people really have zero self awareness.
      - whalesalad 2y ago
        I do not value human life over any other life. Squirrels, frogs, birds, babies, they are all the same.
        justonenote 2y ago
        So you are saying given an mutually exclusive choice you would save the life of 2 frogs over 1 human baby? If you really do believe this you are an outlier, and 99% of the population do not agree with you and would not want you setting any policy.
        whalesalad 2y ago
        I don't think that you are qualified to make these remarks.
  - kaba0 2y ago
    Because people are morons
Conscat 2y ago
Appointing outwardly biased Supreme Court justices who prejudiced USA law against women and many minorities.
- bluefirebrand 2y ago
  Arguably this stacking of the Supreme Court could have been prevented if Justices had retired when the Democrats still had control of appointing their replacements
  - Shekelphile 2y ago
    No, nothing would have changed if that happened. Republicans have no qualms about overtly breaking the law and abandoning their duty and decorum. If they did then Garland would be a sitting SCJ and Gorsuch wouldn't.
    - bluefirebrand 2y ago
      If RBG had retired while Obama was still president, it would have been a Democrat appointment, no? Am I missing something?
      - adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
        yes. Scalia died in Feb 2016 (while Obama was president) and the senate refused to hold confirmation hearings on a successor until Trump took office in 2021.
mrbombastic 2y ago
Moving the embassy to Jerusalem and the U.S. recognizing illegal settlements as “legal” set the stage for Oct 7
- rozap 2y ago
  I'm sure that situation be over with trump. And by over I mean that netanyahu will kill any and all remaining Palestinians and annex the strip and West Bank. Then the Zionists will set their eyes on Lebanon.
- ashoeafoot 2y ago
  [dead]
- loandbehold 2y ago
  Nah, the goal of Hamas has always been to unexist Israel. That's been literally in their charter since Hamas was founded.
slillibri 2y ago
The pandemic response, the Muslim ban, family separation at the southern boarder, repealing roe v wade, ending DACA. This doesn’t even take into account the policies he wants to enact like mass deportations.
- laichzeit0 2y ago
  What is the problem with deporting people who are there illegally? As someone who doesn’t live on the border of the United States do you know how incredibly hard it is to legally immigrate there? I don’t see why other people should be allowed to jump the line. There’s a legal way to get in, follow it like everyone else.
  - foobarian 2y ago
    Having gone through the legal immigration gauntlet, which took decades of sacrifice, I have no sympathy for illegal immigration either. But the other problem is that the economy is not so much about money as who does the work, and I suspect that cohort does a disproportionate amount of it and would crash the economy if actually deported. I predict the same thing will happen with Trump's deportation threat as has happened with the wall and Mexico paying for it.
  - spacedcowboy 2y ago
    Let me see now... - Forcibly separating children from parents, with no plan to reunite them. There are still children missing, who were spirited off $deity-knows-where. If criminals do it, we call it kidnapping and people-trafficking, but this was official government policy - Let's focus on those kids, who were locked up in prisons, had any medication they were on confiscated, and we're not just talking teenagers here, some of those kids were under 5. - The conditions they were held in would make a grown man weep, held in iron cages, kids defecating and vomiting in the heat. Staff wouldn't help small children, it was left to other children to try and keep the infants well. - Routine use of pyschotropic drugs to act as "chemical straitjackets" on older children, so they would be usefully docile while being caged like animals - Sexual assault on these unresisting, drugged children. That's rape. Of children - usually girls but not always. Under government supervision. Personally I don't support the rape of children, but more than half the voting public seem to be "just fine" with it.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
TheAceOfHearts 2y ago
This line of defense falls apart a bit when you add further context. It's my understanding that during his first term he was surrounded by many smart and experienced people who tampered down on Trump's worst urges. But for this election he made it an explicit goal to get rid of those people and put in place people who are more likely to be sycophantic and loyal to him. There's literally dozens of people who worked for Trump during his previous administration that have come out against him since then. Personally, when I read about the alternate elector scheme and the attempt to prevent Pence from certifying the 2020 election, that was sufficient to convince me that Trump poses a real risk.
- SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
  Yeah, I'm very concerned it's really only the grade A sycophants and zealots who have stuck around - the experts have fled.
SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
Well, others probably wouldn't have fired the pandemic planning committee. Another one was created in 2022, but, as of 2024, Trump has said he'd get rid of that one too[1]. [1] https://time.com/6972022/donald-trump-transcript-2024-election/ https://time.com/6972022/donald-trump-transcript-2024-electi...
johnp314 2y ago
"...anyone else would have handled it differently", yes, and very likely we would not have gotten the COVID vaccine as quickly as we did and hence Biden would not have been able to set us out on the road to the pandemics end (and been able to come out of his bunker). Who knows how much longer the pandemic would have lasted and how many more might have died had Trump not cut out the red tape and fast-tracked the pharm industry on the road to a cure.
- Calavar 2y ago
  What red tape did Trump cut?
- adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
  you realize that Trump cut the CDC branch that worked in China (and other countries) to look for and contain novel diseases before they become pandemics right? if Trump hadn't been president, COVID probably would have been like Ebola or Sars1 where it kills a couple thousand people without becoming a pandemic
randerson 2y ago
A mistake he didn't seem to learn from, as he's said he'll appoint RFK (who is openly anti-vaccine) as being in charge of public health.
lynndotpy 2y ago
This is an ahistorical view of things. Trump fired national security officials in charge of handling pandemics. Trump repeatedly claimed that covid was not a problem, and that it wouldn't come to the US, and then that it would disappear by April, and then easter, and so forth. He fought the CDC, NIAID. As we know now, he also sent test machines to Putin for his personal use while they were in short supply in the United States. This pandemic was rightfully and widely compared to the 1920 pandemic, as well as the SARS scare in the 00s. We are very, very lucky that the SARS scare got a lot of the legwork done in advance on the RNA vaccines. It's hard to imagine any United States candidate handling it worse.
LexGray 2y ago
Attempted disassembly of the center of disease control which led to less Covid lead time. Attempted disassembly of EPA and FDA in attempts to raise employment in exchange for consumer safety. Sale of federal lands that were preserves for future generations. Picking a Supreme Court based on politics rather than law. Preferring Totalitarian regimes when it came to diplomacy and snubbing our allies. Trying to use the FBI as his personal attack dogs. At least off the top of my head. Last term his goal was to undo a hundred years of progress as a constitutional progress. This term? I have no clue what his goals are. I just hope he lives because the VP Vance appears to support that project 2025.
tootie 2y ago
He indirectly ended abortion rights and presidential criminal liability. And while it wasn't a single bad event, he spent 4 years making climate policy worse. More directly he attempted to extort a foreign leader for political gain and sponsored an insurrection to stay in power that resulted in loss of life.

SpaceNoodled 2y ago

Spanish flu never happened in your timeline?

whalesalad 2y ago

stacking our court with conservative justices, stacking other courts with his appointees who are already working to throw out his criminal cases. the rollback of roe. it's a very fucking slippery slope and everyone is too concerned with "but muh gas prices!" to think critically about the macro situation.

valval 2y ago
What makes you think people haven’t thought about those things the same as you or more, and still disagree? I think every little life saved is an absolute victory, and many people (as demonstrated) share my sentiment.
- whalesalad 2y ago
  That is an issue. You posses religious conditioning that makes you believe this. If you disagree with abortion that is fine, but your opinion/stance should not be projected on everyone else in the country. The problem with this situation is religious folks are so brainwashed they can't even comprehend a situation where "live and let live" is possible, because you all think that your way is right and everyone else is wrong.
  - bigstrat2003 2y ago
    > That is an issue. You posses religious conditioning that makes you believe this. Abortion is not a religious issue, it is an ethical issue. Some religious people are fine with abortion, some atheists oppose it. > If you disagree with abortion that is fine, but your opinion/stance should not be projected on everyone else in the country. The problem with this situation is religious folks are so brainwashed they can't even comprehend a situation where "live and let live" is possible, because you all think that your way is right and everyone else is wrong. This argument is a completely unworkable argument and I have no idea why people think it will hold water. Abortion opponents believe that abortion is literal murder. You can't simply go "it's fine if you don't want to murder, but you shouldn't stop other people from murdering". I understand you disagree with the idea that abortion is murder, but you need to take that idea on directly rather than trying to paper it over and say "you need to live and let live".
    - whalesalad 2y ago
      > Abortion is not a religious issue, it is an ethical issue. Says you. I see nothing ethically wrong with abortion. Virtually every species of animal is known to kill their own young from time to time. Why should humans be held to a different standard? The earth is already overpopulated as-is.
      - noworriesnate 2y ago
        Just because people ate their own children during a siege doesn't mean it's morally acceptable.
      - svieira 2y ago
        Also a large number of animals cannibalize the weak (chickens, for example). Now, I presume that you hold humans to a different standard for that behavior - why?
        whalesalad 2y ago
        I don’t. Humans are animals, too.
  - nixdev 2y ago
    > You posses religious conditioning that makes you believe this. > but your opinion/stance should not be projected on everyone else in the country. Wow. Talk about projection. Roe, a case where the woman involved later admitted to lying about being raped, that case, the repeal of that case moves the opinion/stance back to the states, where it should be. > they can't even comprehend a situation where "live and let live" is possible Funny someone in the "I NEED TO KILL MY BABY" crowd would write something like this. You people really have zero self awareness.
    - whalesalad 2y ago
      I do not value human life over any other life. Squirrels, frogs, birds, babies, they are all the same.
      - justonenote 2y ago
        So you are saying given an mutually exclusive choice you would save the life of 2 frogs over 1 human baby? If you really do believe this you are an outlier, and 99% of the population do not agree with you and would not want you setting any policy.
        whalesalad 2y ago
        I don't think that you are qualified to make these remarks.
- kaba0 2y ago
  Because people are morons

Conscat 2y ago

Appointing outwardly biased Supreme Court justices who prejudiced USA law against women and many minorities.

bluefirebrand 2y ago
Arguably this stacking of the Supreme Court could have been prevented if Justices had retired when the Democrats still had control of appointing their replacements
- Shekelphile 2y ago
  No, nothing would have changed if that happened. Republicans have no qualms about overtly breaking the law and abandoning their duty and decorum. If they did then Garland would be a sitting SCJ and Gorsuch wouldn't.
  - bluefirebrand 2y ago
    If RBG had retired while Obama was still president, it would have been a Democrat appointment, no? Am I missing something?
    - adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
      yes. Scalia died in Feb 2016 (while Obama was president) and the senate refused to hold confirmation hearings on a successor until Trump took office in 2021.

mrbombastic 2y ago

Moving the embassy to Jerusalem and the U.S. recognizing illegal settlements as “legal” set the stage for Oct 7

rozap 2y ago
I'm sure that situation be over with trump. And by over I mean that netanyahu will kill any and all remaining Palestinians and annex the strip and West Bank. Then the Zionists will set their eyes on Lebanon.
ashoeafoot 2y ago
[dead]
loandbehold 2y ago
Nah, the goal of Hamas has always been to unexist Israel. That's been literally in their charter since Hamas was founded.

slillibri 2y ago

The pandemic response, the Muslim ban, family separation at the southern boarder, repealing roe v wade, ending DACA. This doesn’t even take into account the policies he wants to enact like mass deportations.

laichzeit0 2y ago
What is the problem with deporting people who are there illegally? As someone who doesn’t live on the border of the United States do you know how incredibly hard it is to legally immigrate there? I don’t see why other people should be allowed to jump the line. There’s a legal way to get in, follow it like everyone else.
- foobarian 2y ago
  Having gone through the legal immigration gauntlet, which took decades of sacrifice, I have no sympathy for illegal immigration either. But the other problem is that the economy is not so much about money as who does the work, and I suspect that cohort does a disproportionate amount of it and would crash the economy if actually deported. I predict the same thing will happen with Trump's deportation threat as has happened with the wall and Mexico paying for it.
- spacedcowboy 2y ago
  Let me see now... - Forcibly separating children from parents, with no plan to reunite them. There are still children missing, who were spirited off $deity-knows-where. If criminals do it, we call it kidnapping and people-trafficking, but this was official government policy - Let's focus on those kids, who were locked up in prisons, had any medication they were on confiscated, and we're not just talking teenagers here, some of those kids were under 5. - The conditions they were held in would make a grown man weep, held in iron cages, kids defecating and vomiting in the heat. Staff wouldn't help small children, it was left to other children to try and keep the infants well. - Routine use of pyschotropic drugs to act as "chemical straitjackets" on older children, so they would be usefully docile while being caged like animals - Sexual assault on these unresisting, drugged children. That's rape. Of children - usually girls but not always. Under government supervision. Personally I don't support the rape of children, but more than half the voting public seem to be "just fine" with it.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

TheAceOfHearts 2y ago

This line of defense falls apart a bit when you add further context. It's my understanding that during his first term he was surrounded by many smart and experienced people who tampered down on Trump's worst urges. But for this election he made it an explicit goal to get rid of those people and put in place people who are more likely to be sycophantic and loyal to him. There's literally dozens of people who worked for Trump during his previous administration that have come out against him since then. Personally, when I read about the alternate elector scheme and the attempt to prevent Pence from certifying the 2020 election, that was sufficient to convince me that Trump poses a real risk.

SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
Yeah, I'm very concerned it's really only the grade A sycophants and zealots who have stuck around - the experts have fled.

SketchySeaBeast 2y ago

Well, others probably wouldn't have fired the pandemic planning committee. Another one was created in 2022, but, as of 2024, Trump has said he'd get rid of that one too[1]. [1] https://time.com/6972022/donald-trump-transcript-2024-election/ https://time.com/6972022/donald-trump-transcript-2024-electi...

johnp314 2y ago

"...anyone else would have handled it differently", yes, and very likely we would not have gotten the COVID vaccine as quickly as we did and hence Biden would not have been able to set us out on the road to the pandemics end (and been able to come out of his bunker). Who knows how much longer the pandemic would have lasted and how many more might have died had Trump not cut out the red tape and fast-tracked the pharm industry on the road to a cure.

Calavar 2y ago
What red tape did Trump cut?
adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
you realize that Trump cut the CDC branch that worked in China (and other countries) to look for and contain novel diseases before they become pandemics right? if Trump hadn't been president, COVID probably would have been like Ebola or Sars1 where it kills a couple thousand people without becoming a pandemic

randerson 2y ago

A mistake he didn't seem to learn from, as he's said he'll appoint RFK (who is openly anti-vaccine) as being in charge of public health.

lynndotpy 2y ago

This is an ahistorical view of things. Trump fired national security officials in charge of handling pandemics. Trump repeatedly claimed that covid was not a problem, and that it wouldn't come to the US, and then that it would disappear by April, and then easter, and so forth. He fought the CDC, NIAID. As we know now, he also sent test machines to Putin for his personal use while they were in short supply in the United States. This pandemic was rightfully and widely compared to the 1920 pandemic, as well as the SARS scare in the 00s. We are very, very lucky that the SARS scare got a lot of the legwork done in advance on the RNA vaccines. It's hard to imagine any United States candidate handling it worse.

LexGray 2y ago

Attempted disassembly of the center of disease control which led to less Covid lead time. Attempted disassembly of EPA and FDA in attempts to raise employment in exchange for consumer safety. Sale of federal lands that were preserves for future generations. Picking a Supreme Court based on politics rather than law. Preferring Totalitarian regimes when it came to diplomacy and snubbing our allies. Trying to use the FBI as his personal attack dogs. At least off the top of my head. Last term his goal was to undo a hundred years of progress as a constitutional progress. This term? I have no clue what his goals are. I just hope he lives because the VP Vance appears to support that project 2025.

tootie 2y ago

He indirectly ended abortion rights and presidential criminal liability. And while it wasn't a single bad event, he spent 4 years making climate policy worse. More directly he attempted to extort a foreign leader for political gain and sponsored an insurrection to stay in power that resulted in loss of life.