i'd be interested to hear the thoughts of any bluelighters who'd describe themselves as trump supporters on his performance as president with regard to the covid situation, the george floyd case and the events precipitated by the case.
i know its easy to be in a bubble and i'd appreciate a different perspective.
alasdair
I'll bite.
COVID:
Bluster and Bravado showing cluelessness at first when saying it's nothing and will blow over.
Smart move closing international travel, despite being called racist for it.
Bluster and Bravado showing cluelessness when voicing authority the states had, not him, in regards to civilian restrictions.
Good working with the states to ensure none were caught short in preparation for worst cases (providing unused naval hospitals, helping set up additional sites)
Summary - Bluster and Bravado give him a spotlight, but when rubber hits the road he's doing what he can and letting others do their duty.
FLOYD:
Let the states handle it, it is their responsibility first and foremost.
Muster the Nat'l Guard in preparation is smart, for when the governors ask for help if needed.
Bluster and Bravado claiming to send the Nat'l Guard in without request from governors to retain spotlight and set the stage for a win-win-win* on his part. Legally, he actually CAN do this if the states fail to provide for the safety and well being of it's citizens.
Labeling ANTIFA a terrorist organization....I'm leery of it. I believe the FBI has already been outlining ANTIFA activity for years as terroristic, but to cue up an investigation into citizens an an effort to curb a nebulous organization ... to me, that's opening a door to 4th Amendment violations, McCarthyism, and other concerning aspects. I'd prefer if the FBI did it's job in watching and shutting down dangerous citizens (under ANTIFA label or not) rather than making a public notice for people hunting with shaky definition and criteria. I think Trump made a mistake on this one, and at best he can choose to pretend he didn't say it while the FBI does it's job. More likely, he gave Democrats more talking points against his re-election.
*Win-win-win = He has offered to quell the riots if the states can't. If the states say 'no thanks' and fail, it gives Trump another platform for re-election and extending exec power. If the states say 'no thanks' and solve their own riots, he will take credit for pushing them towards that end. If the states ask for his help, he gets more proof that he can keep American's safe, fodder for re-election and extended power.
I need to pause for a moment and address 'extended power'. I asked elsewhere if the use of executive orders to enact laws is an over reach and got no answer. I became aware of the practice a conservatives railed about Obamacare, though I am certain earlier presidents (both parties) used executive orders as well. But Obama used them and was heavily criticized for it by the right, and by Trump who now uses the executive orders himself. Nobody chooses to relinquish authority. But I wonder how Trump will operate going forward (assuming re-election). Will he continue to push for more presidential power, or allow the position to be reigned in. I don't think he's capable of the latter, but an awareness of precedent and what it lays out for the future (of any president, of any party) is dangerous, IMO. It parallels my concern for the liberals who cry for more and more gov't control over citizen's lives (gov't programs, social safety net and the criteria to qualify for it)....and I want to ask, would you want Trump, or another president like him, to HAVE that control?