Once again a hypothetical scenario about Obama being in the office where the whole purpose is to make Trump look bad. Yes, he does have way more influence than anybody else, he also got selected as the president of USA and might get re-elected again, so there must be atleast something that he does well. I don't know American politics that well that i'd be able to say what he has done or what he didn't do, but if i built my personal image about him what's being said in the internet, he would have never made it to the president in the first place and even less, for having a possibility to get re-elected.
Some of the people think about this Corona situation that it should be dealt with by letting it be, then there's others who won't leave their houses etc. Everyone have different way of approaching this, whatever you will do as the leader of the country, it will always lead to the fact that certain group ain't happy. If everyone agreed on everything 100%, there wouldn't be any reason to have single person being in the charge of any country and people just could go on, agreeing on everything and everyone would be happy. Too bad it will never be like that, decisions will be made, whether you agree with them or not.
My false equivalence there was to demonstrate that Trump would never tolerate Obama for handling this situation the way he currently is.
There are things he does well. He's bombastic, but he's forced some questions that previous presidents never touched but should have. Everything from US interventions in foreign wars to aging international trade treaties that were long overdue for reassessment in a changed world. Not to mention what's the point of the G-7 anyway?
But other than following 36 other countries that beat him to the punch at closing down travel with China -- while still leaving loopholes for tens of thousands of others to travel in from China (not to mention Europe, etc.), it's clear that he just wants the problem to go away and has no tolerance for actual leadership. Leadership to him is about firing people, loyalty, and ideology. Those are workable in some contexts, but not when states are left to fend for themselves or to compete with each other and the federal government for resources to deal with the crisis. Or in promoting scientifically untested false cures. To basically fanning flames of citizen discontent and divisiveness rather than foster some form of collective action.
And with minorities suffering the most from the plague in a public health crisis, you'd think that plugging that hole could have been a priority to get the nation more quickly back on its feed and back to work operationally? Let alone addressed some of the fundamental inequities in the country that are harming everyone. But instead of ever wanting to follow through with the "replace" part of repeal and replace the ACA, he's only actively working to damage the public's defenses to disease even more: eliminating health care coverage, claiming everyone can get tested when they clearly cannot for months, hiding the CDC, abandoning WHO, disregarding epidemiological data and the general concensus in medicine and health. Really, you have to try to be that incompetent at all those moves.
There will always be disagreement about what the right or wrong way is to handle something. That is the fundamental business of politics. If you have no taste for stepping into a crisis and being the point of responsibility and taking the heat for making decisions, you are in the wrong line of work.
Buy on AliExpress.com
