Or, hear me out: you could stop needlessly deflecting and white-knighting over a one-letter vague gender difference for a group none of us are part of AFAIK, and actually tackle our arguments head-on.
Pandemic response: Trump refused to take basically any action unless it was too late, politicized mask-wearing, touted unproven and possibly dangerous remedies, KEPT POLITICIZING MASK-WEARING (resulting in likely being the primary cause of the large quantity of mask-denying, selfish, stubborn plague-spreading dumbfucks ruining the safety of everyone around them)... yeah.
Just under 500k people have died of the coronavirus in the US. It may have caught the whole world unawares, but thing is: 1) Trump knew how serious things were in early February, and we have him ON RECORDING deliberately downplaying it and planning to do so (source:
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/09/9111...ess-of-the-coronavirus-early-on-new-book-says), and 2) he did basically everything he could to AVOID a proper response.
Trump. Made. This. Pandemic. Worse. On. Purpose.
Border separation: Seriously? Small children being separated from their families at the border? Regardless of party lines, that's just plain fucked up... and that's before you consider the concentration-camp-level-awful conditions the kids were put in. I am not using a shred of hyperbole there- the camps really were that horrible.
Foreign power: Trump tried to strongman Ukraine into digging up dirt on Biden and family. That's basically it.
Voter fraud: Erm, "it happens from both sides" isn't an excuse here. Trump lost, BADLY (so badly that it turned Georgia blue), and then proceeded to actively deny it and claim he won for months. If he hadn't lied his ass off about voter fraud, things would've likely proceeded smoothly, and more importantly...
The insurrection: It wouldn't have happened if not for Trump whining like the sore loser he is and actively refusing to admit defeat in the fucking presidential election. He claimed it was 'stolen' from him (despite every argument they proposed to back that getting absolutely shattered when it actually came to court, as the claims held no water), told his supporters to "stop the steal" and that they would have to "fight like hell" in order to "stop" said "steal". The key here is that unlike the out-of-context blip clips used to (badly) defend his statements during the impeachment trial, Trump actively told his supporters to fight for him to basically cheat him the election victory. He even said he'd be there with them trying to 'stop the steal' (though he wasn't, due to his other primary trait beyond greed and narcissism being cowardice), and OUTRIGHT REFUSED TO SEND THE NATIONAL GUARD. And then there's the matter of the other call, the one where he responds to basically "sir, your base is trying a coup and they want to lynch the VP, FUCKING DO SOMETHING" with "I guess they care more about the truth of the election than you do, huh?".
Yeah.
There are so many falsehoods in there that I couldn't ignore this. Honestly, one can only come to believe all of this by taking over what 'news' channels like CNN feeds you without doing your own research.
1) Masks are not effective. In fact, it's even bad for your health to use the same cloth mask for prolonged periods of time like most people do. Just because Fauci or the opposition says something doesn't makes it true.
2) That 500k death toll claim is ridiculous. Do you even know how covid cases and deaths are diagnosed or the statistical hijinx that are pulled? One of the most absurd examples I know of is a Croatian man dying because he falls of a ladder, but he's counted as a covid victim because "covid caused him to get dizzy and fall". First off, the flu is reported to practically have vanished (for 95%). In the Netherlands for example the absense of deaths due to flu and other causes balances out the reported covid deaths, meaning there's no legitimate cause for acting as if more people died than normally; the amount of deaths is within the range of what's normal across the last years. It's no different for the USA. And you also can't just say take the CNN (or whatever channel you watch) death ticker as if that number represents the absolute severity of the matter. There's a major difference between dying BECAUSE OF or dying WITH covid. Speaking in terms of the big picture, most people who don't survive it are old or have comorbidities. Those are the same people who are just as likely to not survive something like a influenza (and no, influenza isn't an innocent virus and that's considering the current state of affairs where have flu jabs (a vaccine)), noro or rinovirus infection. And on top of that there's the unreliability of the PCR tests that much policy is based on. Even the WHO is now (too late) admitting that the number of false positives is too high.
3) When the former President issued a travel ban on China everybody was pissed that he took action because it was allegedly xenophobic and the likes of Pelosi even encouraged mass gatherings in response. I can also write a lot of stuff in a book, but that doesn't makes it true, even if I'm feeding you the words you want to hear. Besides, that guy took an awful long time before coming out with his 'breaking news'. It reeks of self-interest. As for trying to downplay things, I'd take that over intentionally frightening people. Fear is a bad advisor. Things like showing a Chinese guy dropping dead on the street (turned out to be a heart failure), or rows of coffings with covid victims in Italy (turned out those pictures also showed up in articles from years prior, except the coffins contained refugees who died crossing the Mediterranean sea) or death/infection tickers without giving any nuance or context to the numbers. Mortality is the most fragile point of the human psyche, which is why you normally approach such topics with more sensitivity, but this time they threw all of that out of the window and opted to select the most nasty and terrifying choice of words they could come up with. One year later we know that covid's mortality rate is close to flu-range mortality (0.16% vs covid's 0.23% to cite the Netherlands' case), but a disproportionate amount of fear has been instilled in people by marketing the virus as a killer virus that belongs in the same street as ebola. People who live in the tropes and deal with diseases that are beyond question much nastier and deadlier than anything we face are much more sober than how we're responding to covid en masse. So yes, I'd actually appreciate a leader who doesn't wants to frighten his people.
4) Claiming Trump tried to worsen the 'pandemic' (it's only a pandemic because the WHO adjusted the criteria of when something's a pandemic) and get people killed on purpose? That's just hilarious. If anything, a claim like that would be more at home with the Democrat who pushed for and imposed lockdowns. Lockdowns are not proven to be effective, but the collateral damage is catastrophic on so many fronts (financial, sociological, psychological, etc.) and it exceeds any imagined gains. Even the WHO is saying that lockdowns aren't meant to be used like that. Places like Sweden, Japan an Florida are examples that show that you aren't off worse without lockdowns compared to places like Ney York and California, but Democrats and ,Democrat governors in particular, imposed draconian lockdowns regardlessly. It doesn't gets closer to worsening things on purpose than that.
5) Do you even know anything about how things work when it comes to the border? I'm not going to claim things are perfect, but anyone who works at border patrol can tell you that things aren't as cut and dry as news channels are having you believe. Human smuggling and child smuggling is a big problem at the southern border and there's such a thing as "fake families" . Doing nothing out of the goodness of our hearts is also not an option. It's not like Trump invented this policy, he upped the ante with the whole zero-tolerance stuff. Just the media outrage wasn't as present in years prior doesn't means the situation was fine and dandy at the border beforehand - it just didn't warrant TV time.
6) Trump was well within his rights to ask Ukrain to look into Biden's actions. Biden's son was on the board of Burisma (with zero experience in that particular sector). The company which was under investigation, which included Hunter Biden himself. Joe Biden even bragged on camera that he (sucessfully) threatened to withold a billion dollars of aid if Ukrain didn't fire the prosecutor. This isn't up for debate, he bragged about it ON CAMERA. That's called corruption and there's no legimate reason to not investigate it. Doing so isn't strongarming a country to dig up dirt on someone. Besides, Biden hadn't even announced he was going to run for presidency back then, so the notion of Trump trying to eliminate a political opponent doesn't holds up either.
7) There are legimate concerns about the election. Unsollicited voting by mail is logically more prone to fraud because the chain of custody is longer and contains more weak links where things can go wrong. There is plenty of evidence of fraud. There are more people who have reported under oath that misconduct took place (running same ballots multiple tie through the machine, barring Republican pollwatchers from doing their jobs, etc.). In some cases there was even video footage supporting this (Georgia...). You also can't explain to me with a straight face why Biden, who hardly even campaigned, did worse than Hillary everywhere except for the exact places that actually mattered thanks to the counting of votes stopping and dumps of ballots coming in almost exclusively for Biden. A statistical anomaly can happen, but every exact right spot at the exact same time? That's fishy at the very least. Proper audits were never conducted. Just recounting votes serves no purpose if you don't do things like signature verification; I recall that during Bush v Gore every ballot was scrutinized meticulously, didn't happen this time. And not to mention the unconstitutional election rule changes in the swing states. That's beyond debate, but you and likeminded folks conveniently gloss over that. The swing states changed their election rules without going through the state legislature and following proper procedure as they pushed for mail-in-voting and removing as many integrity measures as possible (e.g. signature verification). That's in violation of theie state constitutions and by proxy the constitution IIRC. The fact of the matter is that the courts, even SCOTUS, refused to rule on the merits and dismissed the cases on procedural grounds such as standing and being "too late". If you can't make your case, you can't present your evidence. Getting dismissed on procedural grounds does not equal your arguments getting shattered. That's a fallacy. Officially there's no answer given to the question of whether the election was stolen and the Biden camp and supporters should have welcomed proper investigation the case coming before a judge if only to prove their point once and for all. If the case was judged on the merits, then no room for debate on the matter anymore, but that didn't happen and so people can rightly believe that the election was straight from a banana republic.
8) Ah, there it is, the insurrection! I find it funny how people can act like this was the worst thing ever. On footage you see barriers being removed to let people in. Instead of storming the building you them walking inside, even following the path like a bunch of tourists. Most people who were in Washington did not invade the Capitol. Your rhetoric about Trump inciting people to "fight for him" is dishonest. News outlets as well as the Democrats during the impeachment trial have used doctored footage where they didn't show the entire clip. He clearly instructed people to "peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard". No sane person person who listened to the entire speech can claim in his/her honest mind that Trump incited people to violently storm the Capitol. Even in terms of the timeline it doesn't makes sense, because he was still giving his speech when people started entering the building. And considering what has been reported and the footage I've seen there's no doubt in my mind that there were Antifa and BLM fellows present there to shake things up in a bad way. And if you want to talk about 'inciting' rhetoric, let's remember how many Democrats have been using similar and even worse rhetoric over the last year. That's ranging from things like telling people to get in the faces of representatives to encouriging the BLM riots (which were objectively worse in damage, deaths and intensity than what happened at the Capitol) and the hateful "make them pay!" rhetoric towards Trump supporters. The Trump defense team presented a nice montage of Democrats in their own words violating the same standards they tried to impose on Trump, which is highly hypocritical. If you think Trump went to far, then you are obligated to also feel the same about many Democrats. Last, but no least, let's not pretend this was a unique event. I recall how the Capitol also got invaded by people during the Kavanaugh confirmations with people banging loudly on the doors in intimidating fashion.
like a 250 dollar kit back when DDR4 was Intel only
