Not really. Trumps opinion from the start was ambivalence. He said "they might help, but I'm not going to say for sure because I don't really know".

The fact that Trump didn't like masks made Democrats more likely to wear them.

And the fact that Trump was ambivalent about masks honestly made conservatives more likely to wear them. Because Conservatives distrust all power centers that claim to have omnipotent knowledge.

What other human would have made both political parties wear masks at rates above 80%? I cant think of any other than maybe Bill Clinton

This post was edited by EndlessSky on Jan 3 2021 07:22pm

you are very, very stupid

Wow this is an insanely stupid opinion. Like wow. You really think that the Trump cult wouldn't have followed along, and you really think that the president doesn't have power in shaping the narrative.

I guess that explains how you can vote for Trump. You have literally zero respect for the office, and are too stupid to form coherent thoughts.

I'm not sure what you mean.

well we agree on one thing for sure

Trump's followers are basically a cult. If the cult-master says to wear masks and starts selling MAGA masks, they're gonna wear them. Trump also encouraged dissent during lockdowns leading to lower compliance, and actively undermined his own infectious disease team.

And that's just the stuff he did from the podium. His entire task force to secure PPE was a few interns cold calling manufacturing companies.

Seriously, you are either ignorant as hell, or literally the dumbest poster on the forum, but I already know it's both.

convince me trump cult isn't the biggest cancel culture movement in the US

Lockdowns dont prevent the spread. Especially the ones that ban outdoor dining and dont take into consideration store size like the ones in Cali.

Lockdowns didnt prevent the worst states from being Democrat states either.



Burden of proof lies on you.

I've seen dozens of articles all saying lockdowns significantly slowed spread, and only one article that says they didn't.

That's just peer reviewed journals though, since I care about data and science. I know you value anecdotes and political loyalty more than reality.

I really dont think that a president Hillary would have been any less divisive than Trump. Republicans would have hated her by about the same degree as liberals hated Trump. Yes, the mainstream media would have sucked her ladydick 24/7, but on the other hand, she would not have been as popular with her base as Trump was with his.

In the end, the true story here is that Trump was only able to become president in the first place because the country already was really really REALLY fucking divided.


Trump being a loose cannon meant that him being president was a "high risk high reward" situation from Russia's pov. Could easily have backfired for them if they had rubbed the unstable megalomaniac the wrong way. Also, was it really a given that Trump would be quite as isolationist in his foreign policy as he turned out to be? Chances were surely above 50%, but there was no guarantee whatsoever. Trump being easy to manipulate could also have ended with another Iraq war situation, where a gullible president gets sucked in by his advisors and generals who want to go to war. The upside of a Trump presidency for Russia certainly outweighed the risks, but I dont think that it was as much of a slam dunk for them as you claim it was.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 3 2021 09:55pm