Comment Re:Sure... (Score 1) 293
So take out the NY deaths attributable to the Governor of NY, then repeat for the other 49 states. I think part of the problem is that some people see the office of POTUS as fixer of all problems in the country, but a federated model of government specifically limits this responsibility for good reason. So when people say Covid is all Trump's fault, it's really 90%+ the fault of each State's handling of it, and maybe 10% Federal. (made up numbers obviously but demonstrates the point) States have the power to enforce local laws that could limit most of the damage (which is what happened in Australia). A lot of those were mishandled in the US through no fault of the Federal government.
Absolutely every governor should take responsibility for the deaths caused by their poor actions or lack of action. Even if you do this, this does not magically erase all responsibility from Trump. Just like many deaths became unavoidable because of the actions and inaction of China, additional deaths became unavoidable because of the actions and inaction of Trump, then governors, etc. The responsibility is not mutually exclusive. China, Trump, governors all have a share of the blame. I don't get to hold China accountable, though. Trump's share of responsibility in America is by far the largest out of anyone.
Yet you're happy to assign blame without this data. This is exactly Orange Man Bad in a nutshell.
We don't yet know the full extent of the cost of the Ever given blocking the Suez canal yet either. It's still very safe to say that it's a lot.
It's funny because I have these arguments often, and most of the time no-one can ever produce any actual evidence. 90% of it is simply regurgitating media headlines, or attacking Trump's personality rather than policy. If you put Covid aside, most things were measurably better under Trump (jobs, economy, international security etc). The numbers back that up, but this 'evidence' somehow doesn't count.
That's how science works. The stuff at the fringes doesn't count, unless some groundbreaking evidence pushes the fringe to the mainstream. Someone can publish some paper that shows plants have feelings. That "evidence" runs so counter to the mainstream that doesn't count until someone builds a machine to allow people to talk to plants to prove beyond a doubt that they are sentient, and we all have to stop eating vegetables.
With anything new we have many opinions from scientists, this is actually how science works, freedom of inquiry and robust debate etc. Yet only one side gets airtime and only one side is considered trusted? Do you see the problem there?
First of all "both sides" get plenty of airtime. I would argue that the conspiracy side gets way more airtime than it deserves because of how this whole thing has become politicized. Normally publicity is proportional to merit. But once something a scientific topic is politicized, publicity is tied to utility in pushing a political agenda. You can consume all kinds of crackpot theories that have no merit, by watching even mainstream media like Fox News, and a lot of it is because of the former president using his office to push these meritless conspiracy theories to the point where even good journalists are forced to give airtime debunking them.
Sure. But Trump doesn't get Cuomo's bad scores added to his scoreboard. Likewise for the other 49 states. Remove those bad scores and Trump's score doesn't look as bad as the haters would make out.
Sure. Some people think Trump is responsible for every single death. And those people are overestimating trump's responsibility. I'm not sure what the point is, of pointing out that those people are wrong, other than to create a strawman.