Cuomo and Trump: Who Can Tell the Difference?

[probinson]

That's true, but it was a mistake, a miscalculation and not malice or politics.

I'm going to have to disagree here. We knew, even at this early point in the pandemic when this policy decision was made, that the elderly were far more susceptible to COVID than younger people. And while I understand they were making these policy decisions based off of some incredibly inaccurate and flawed models, you'd think there would be a better solution than sending symptomatic patients back to the most vulnerable in the pandemic.

I would agree that it was't "malice", meaning I'm not suggesting Cuomo was trying to kill off the elderly intentionally. But I would disagree that it was just a "mistake" given what we knew about the disease of the time.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

The Comfort wasn't allowed to take on any patients with Covid-19, which were the vast majority of the patients. That wasn't Cuomo's fault, but rather the Navy.

There was a good reason for that. The plan was that the Comfort would would take on non-Coronavirus patients so that the hospitals would have more beds free for those infected with Coronavirus.

 

[Albion]

The comparison, if it were made between Trump and Biden, would seem to be more apt than making it be between Trump and Cuomo.

It was said by some that if Cuomo was forced from office because of his improper sexual behavior, it would tend to provide cover for other wrongdoers in his own political party. The original post here seemed to be doing just that.

 

[seeking.IAM]

There was a good reason for that. The plan was that the Comfort would would take on non-Coronavirus patients so that the hospitals would have more beds free for those infected with Coronavirus.

That's sort of like my mother-in-law getting me almost what I want for Christmas. There is nothing worse than getting you almost what you want. You're stuck with something you can't use. But I suppose it's the thought that counts?

 

[probinson]

There was a good reason for that. The plan was that the Comfort would would take on non-Coronavirus patients so that the hospitals would have more beds free for those infected with Coronavirus.

Except public health, politicians and the media had done a bang up job of scaring the ever living snot out of people, so they didn't seek medical care that they really needed;

Although hospitals expected COVID-19 would interrupt routine medical care, many were surprised to see a sudden, dramatic decline in the number patients presenting to emergency departments (EDs). In “Where Are All the Patients?” a hospital in California’s Central Valley reported that ED volume fell by 50% in March, after shelter-in-place was mandated. The hospital welcomed the decline to a degree, as it anticipated a surge COVID-19 patients, but it noticed “alarming statistics” as the trend continued. The hospital could see in admissions data that the decline included both high- and low-acuity emergencies. Data from emergency medical services (EMS) confirmed that patients who really did need emergency service were staying home:

Missed and Delayed Diagnoses of Non-COVID Conditions — Collateral Harm from a Pandemic​

 

[Subdood]

Except Cuomo is going to survive politically.

Given recent events, you... might want to rethink that.

 

[Subdood]

Cuomo and Trump: Who Can Tell the Difference?
< snip >

Pretty much any rational individual, I'm thinking.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I mean the big difference as I see it is that Cuomo doesn't have the undying support of Democrats, liberals, and progressives--in fact those are the ones calling for his removal.

Trump is first and foremost a brand. A brand that must be defended at all costs, and thus Trump can do no wrong, and even if he did do wrong, it doesn't matter; because the danger of the alternative must be asserted to be far worse. And so false narratives, conspiracy theories, and bad faith actors all work in conjunction to keep the Trump brand afloat.

Cuomo isn't a brand. Cuomo is just a guy, and he did bad things, he abused his power, so he has to go.

Which, again, I think demonstrates that had Trump tried to run as a Democrat, and even if he somehow by some strange twist of fate won as a Democrat--if he said and did the things he said and did as a Democrat, not only would Republicans have gone after him, but so would other Democrats.

That's a difference between a political party and a political cult.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Trump is first and foremost a brand. A brand that must be defended at all costs, and thus Trump can do no wrong, and even if he did do wrong, it doesn't matter; because the danger of the alternative must be asserted to be far worse. And so false narratives, conspiracy theories, and bad faith actors all work in conjunction to keep the Trump brand afloat.

Whatever it is I'm not getting, it just didn't make much sense to me that Hillary Clinton should have had the White House in 2016 because Donald Trump and Billy Bush had a bawdy conversation in private back in 2005. It just didn't follow to me. Even leaving aside the question of whether a man's private conversations ought to remain private. Just because something is wrong doesn't make it relevant to political office.

But I suppose it was always preferable to attack Trump personally, so as to avoid having to actually talk about the issues...

 

[Strathos]

Whatever it is I'm not getting, it just didn't make much sense to me that Hillary Clinton should have had the White House in 2016 because Donald Trump and Billy Bush had a bawdy conversation in private back in 2005. It just didn't follow to me. Even leaving aside the question of whether a man's private conversations ought to remain private. Just because something is wrong doesn't make it relevant to political office.

But I suppose it was always preferable to attack Trump personally, so as to avoid having to actually talk about the issues...

You really think that was the only objectionable thing that he ever said/did?

 

[Subdood]

Contextomy alert!

 

[Ken-1122]

Cuomo and Trump: Who Can Tell the Difference?


An overtly corrupt elected official with a propensity for pawing women, a legion of fans who habitually excuse his excesses, and a face that can be taken as a symbol of his political tribe—you know who I'm talking about, right? Or maybe you don't. This is politics here, and sociopaths performing to the adoration of the multitudes seem to go with the territory. To be honest, I could be referring to either New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo or former President Donald Trump,

Who are all of these women Trump was accused of groping? I heard Biden was accused of groping, but those were children; not adult women. Did I miss something here?

 

[Albion]

Whatever it is I'm not getting, it just didn't make much sense to me that Hillary Clinton should have had the White House in 2016 because Donald Trump and Billy Bush had a bawdy conversation in private back in 2005. It just didn't follow to me. Even leaving aside the question of whether a man's private conversations ought to remain private. Just because something is wrong doesn't make it relevant to political office.

Basically true.

While it's a touchy and/or risky matter to point the finger at one politician and excuse another one when the supposed offenses are similar...

...there are differences.

The Billy Bush revelation was, as you say, only smart-alecky talk between two men. No actual offense was being referred to or alleged. AND that was before Trump was an elected official.

By contrast, Bill Clinton and Joe Biden have had their alleged sexual offenses revealed by the victims and it all occurred WHILE these men were in elective office. In addition, the incidents were described as taking place while the victims were government employees under these men's supervision.

Many people would say, therefore, that the differences are real, but it all can be made to look more or less the same if all the relevant facts are conveniently obscured in the telling.

But I suppose it was always preferable to attack Trump personally, so as to avoid having to actually talk about the issues...

 

[DaisyDay]

Who are all of these women Trump was accused of groping?

The 26 women who have accused Trump of sexual misconduct

1. Jessica Leeds
2. Mrs. Ivana Trump (later rescinded)
3. Kristin Anderson
4. Jill Harth
5. Lisa Boyne
6. Mariah Billado and
7. Victoria Hughes
8. E. Jean Carroll
9. Temple Taggart
10. Cathy Heller
11. Amy Dorris
12. Karena Virginia
13. Karen Johnson
14. Tasha Dixon and
15. Bridget Sullivan
16. Melinda McGillivray
17. Natasha Stoynoff
18. Jennifer Murphy and
19. Juliet Huddy
20. Rachel Crooks
21. Samantha Holvey
22. Ninni Laaksonen
23. Jessica Drake
24. Summer Zervos
25. Cassandra Searles
26. Alva Johnson

What to me is most remarkable is that these allegations were made over the decades. Trump bragged about assaulting women to Billy Bush; these women corroborate his own assertion that he liked to just grab women without their permission.

I heard Biden was accused of groping, but those were children; not adult women. Did I miss something here?

You heard wrong. Biden was not accused of groping anyone but Tara Reade whose account is less than credible because she claimed he attacked her in a public hallway that was heavily used by people. No one else reported anything. HR had no record of any incidents. Furthermore, her credibility took a hit because of her long history of grifting.

However, many women have said that Biden made them uncomfortable by non-sexual touching such as shoulder pat or a hug.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

What to me is most remarkable is that these allegations were made over the decades.

Many of them were made just prior to the 2016 election. Of course, that was just coincidence, they couldn't possibly have been politically motivated.

Trump bragged about assaulting women to Billy Bush; these women corroborate his own assertion that he liked to just grab women without their permission.

That's not what Trump said. He said as a celebrity you can get away with this kind of thing, which is unfortunate, but I can't say it's not true.

 

[DaisyDay]

Many of them were made just prior to the 2016 election. Of course, that was just coincidence, they couldn't possibly have been politically motivated.

Yes, just after his bragging about assaulting women was made public. They were backing up his own allegation.

I wouldn't doubt that some of it was motivated by his candidacy; after all, would you want the man who assaulted you to be in charge of the country?

That's not what Trump said. He said as a celebrity you can get away with this kind of thing, which is unfortunate, but I can't say it's not true.

It is what he said. "Grab them by the [p-word]" is sexual assault no matter how you phrase it.

 

[Albion]

Yes, just after his bragging about assaulting women was made public.

And who made it public? It's not very convincing to argue that the recording which Billy Bush had been saving for quite a few years, since long before Trump was thought likely to seek the Presidency, "just happened" to be released to the public when it did.

If you recall, the time was during the period when Trump was giving campaign speeches and a series of planned disruptions by supporters of the other political party took place during a number of them. This sex aggressor "disclosure" appeared to be part of that same strategy.

 

[DaisyDay]

And who made it public? It's not very convincing to argue that the recording which Billy Bush had been saving for quite a few years, since long before Trump was thought likely to seek the Presidency, "just happened" to be released to the public when it did.

If you recall, the time was during the period when Trump was giving campaign speeches and a series of planned disruptions by supporters of the other political party took place during a number of them. This sex aggressor "disclosure" appeared to be part of that same strategy.

What was remarkable about the disclosures is the length of time, decades, over which these assaults occurred.