Willfully ignorant to the point of criminal recklessness is what I would say. Look at this interview with Dr Faucci
You mean the “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters” thing?
I think that was the most perceptive and intelligent thing he ever said.
I don’t think Trump is particularly intelligent at all. In fact, I think he’s pretty goddamn stupid. But he does have that salesman’s knack for sizing up a prospect, or a mark.
And the last four years, and especially the last couple of months, have shown us that he was absolutely right.
Trump is not a particularly good con man. He can only con stupid people.
This worked somewhat for him in his business career, where he could focus on stupid people and not bother anyone else. Most of us figured that anyone who did business with Donald Trump deserved whatever problems they experienced as a result.
Trump’s problems really started when he decided to switch over to politics. His ability to con stupid people served to get him nominated and the Republican political machine got him elected. But he was no longer somebody who could be ignored. And his incompetence was no longer tolerable.
History will have its revenge on Trump. If he had stayed out of politics, he might have been vaguely remembered as a semi-successful businessman . But now he will be remembered as somebody who was a failure as president.
The estimates range from 110K to just over 1M.
No one president killed that many Indians.
He undoubtedly infected many with Covid, undoubtedly some of them have died.
Rejecting the truth is not willful ignorance.
The truth was inconvenient and not part of his ‘message’. So he lied. And was told that his lies would lead to more infections and deaths. Manslaughter, at the least.
It certainly is when you choose to follow information that you are likely to know is incorrect, and that also has to include the demand for false information of the style’ Will no-one rid me of this troublesome priest’ type of rejection.
Its not just that he chose to reject the truth, he knowlingly advocated creating another ‘truth’ but in such a way he might try to claim deniability.
What is the difference between rejecting the ‘truth’ and being wilfully ignorant?
Here is the term on Wiktionary:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/willful_ignorance
Essentially you purposefully avoid things that contradict what you want to believe. You can argue that you’re not really rejecting the truth so much as avoiding it.
Think of the difference between one guy who only reads right wing propaganda “news” sites, and another who reads a variety of news sites but only believes what fits right wing theory. The first person is willfully ignorant in insulating himself from the truth, the second is rejecting the truth he is exposed to and doesn’t like.
It’s a fine line with very little substantive difference, but there is a difference.
Almost half could have been prevented if Trump was not such a horrible orangutan.
The vapidly stupid GOP voters have blood on their hands as well. Trump’s an incompetent evil shitbird, but without the fervid delusional support of mentally subnormal hick dipshits clutching crosses in one hand and guns in the other, he’d just be able to ruin the lives of the people personally around him.
They elected a pig and surprise, he shit all over everything and ate grandma’s face.
With 400,000 dead and armed Insurrectionists at State and Federal Capitols, it can easily be argued that MAGA has already declared war on America.
He insisted in calling it the China Virus. The Wuhan Flu. Racist implications aside, if he really believed we were under attack by China, he did a piss poor job defending us against it. Would he have been as lackluster in response had they used actual armaments?