SectionC3

Doc, with respect, the only bias I have is for the truth. *** Just re-watched the clip, this time on You Tube. I stand by my characterization. This is a write-up from Politico, but it's an accurate summary: “The Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus. They're politicizing it,” he said. “They don't have any clue. They can't even count their votes in Iowa. No, they can't. They can't count their votes. One of my people came up to me and said, ‘Mr. President, they tried to beat you on Russia, Russia, Russia.’ That did not work out too well. They could not do it. They tried the impeachment hoax.” Then Trump called the coronavirus “their new hoax.” If Trump didn't refer to the virus as a hoax (I think the Politico article should have used the word referred, which might have been better in this instance), then I'm not sure what he was talking about. I say this kindly: enlighten me. I suspect you'll try to say that unspecified Democratic efforts to politicize the virus in an unspecified way are the hoax, not the virus itself. I see that approach as an exercise of gymnastics. I also see it as contradictory to the tone the president otherwise took w/r/t the issue during that time period, which essentially was to try wish the virus away. See this link: https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/trumps-statements-about-the-coronavirus/

Lots of "ifs" in this scenario. If our testing was better, our numbers outside of NYC likely would be higher. Our death rate likely would be lower. And we likely would be closer to being out of this than we are. You're right about the spreading of blame. There will be plenty of it to go around when this is done, as there should be. In the meantime, I return to the point that the "buck" stops at the desk of the President of the United States, whether he wants to admit it or not. His leadership during this pandemic has been an abject failure.

With respect, I don't think it requires bias. I'll draw an analogy to the question of intent in criminal law. Rare is it that a criminal explicitly announces his or her intent. Normally that mental state has to be established through circumstantial evidence, that is, implicitly. The determination whether that mental state has been established always is a question of fact. The concept is the same here. Did Trump come out and say, "I declare COVID-19 to be a hoax!!" Surely he did not. But I watched those clips. The gist of that evidence is that Trump talked about the virus, and characterized it as "their new hoax," or something very close to that. As far as I'm concerned . . . we're "there" in terms of this guy characterizing the issue as a "hoax." That said, your point is an interesting one, well-presented, and intellectually fair. Well done. Holy eff. More nonsense. Which "people" is Kambree (whoever that is) referring to?

Sorry but you're wrong. I back read. Doc said "The Dems called it a hoax too," or something very close to that. I asked for a link or evidence w/r/t to Doc's suggestion that Democrats, like Trump, called the virus a hoax. To this point no such evidence has been provided. And you've instead attempted to shift the conversation to a different issue that only you have have raised, namely, whether a Democrat failed to take the virus seriously. Bottom line: the question was not "can we link a Democrat not taking the virus seriously." You "gaslit" (again, I detest the term, but it's appropriate here) and subtly attempted to change the subject. Now that your attempt at distraction and distortion has failed, perhaps you can return to the main issue here: Trump's historically and epically inept response to the pandemic.

Time to post GIF images, but no time to support your position on the merits, I see.

Maybe all of that is true. But she's still not the chief executive. That's the point. With Harry S Truman, the "buck" stopped at the president's desk. With Donald J. Trump, it's always somebody else's fault when something goes wrong. And this situation . . . how anyone could say that it hasn't gone horribly, historically, obviously, and tragically wrong is simply beyond my comprehension.

The distinction on the "hoax" issue lies in the the difference between "express" and "implied." Did Trump expressly say, "COVID-19 is a hoax?" No. Definitely not. But did he characterize (or strongly imply) the virus as a hoax? Based on the video of the rally that I watched and posted earlier, absolutely. I don't see a semantical gymnastics exercise that permits a different conclusion, but I allowed for a contrary opinion based on the lack of an express statement.

Taiwan, South Korea, and Iceland. Arguably Germany. I suppose Singapore, too, but the different system of government there makes for an unfair analogy.

But you still won't bother to look it up. And your attempts at distraction by taking a prior statement completely out of context and name-calling still can't change the fact that you have failed to provide information with respect to how Trump didn't drop the ball with respect to important things like testing development, PPE acquisitions, and the timely implementation of adequate social distancing guidelines. Have a nice day!

Ahhh, more name calling. I'm too lazy to look for your product. But you're not too lazy to provide something that you've already generated. That. Makes. Perfect. Sense.

Sorry I'm not going to back read. Since you provided the information, it would be much easier for you to find and reproduce it that for me to look for it and guess at what you may or may not have intended to communicate. Once you locate those facts, a summary of your position would be appreciated. Any information on how Trump didn't drop the ball with respect to important things like testing development, PPE acquisitions, and the timely implementation of adequate social distancing guidelines also would be greatly appreciated. I'll understand your refusal to provide it as confirmation that it does not exist. Also, that's a cool picture or meme or whatever. It's a great way to communicate!

And PopGun, for what it's worth, I googled your point about Pelosi/Schumer and the "manufactured crisis." That statement appears to have been made on January 8, 2019, in response to the circumstances at the United States' southern border. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/pelosi-schumer-accuse-trump-using-prime-time-address-manufacture-crisis-n956481; The COVID crisis arose in or about January 2020. I haven't (and likely won't) review the balance of your points, but the first one is, among other things, misleading, wrong, and patently "fake news." Have a nice day. The focus initially was on Trump. So let's get it back where it belongs. I detest the term gaslighting, but you're doing it here. Trump's job performance here sucks. Tremendously. And instead of defending it on the merits, you've elected to point to others in different positions with far less ability to address the crisis who may not have appreciated its gravity early enough. The fact that somebody else messed up, too, doesn't excuse the fact that Trump has failed --- tremendously so -- in his response to the pandemic. It's a point that you apparently can't contest on the merits, hence the references to usual boogeymen like Schumer, Pelosi, AOC, and Tom Perez.

I didn't see the word "hoax" in there. (Did a word search using ctrl F). I'll ask again: any evidence? Nice. Somebody else didn't take it seriously, so Trump's errors are excused. The focus here is on Trump and his "epically" (borrowing from the Boston Globe) poor performance with respect to the pandemic. So let's keep our eyes on the prize. My point is that Trump's numerous failings have coalesced in this situation and contributed to a presidential performance that has imperiled the economy, health, and way of life of our nation. Your response is to criticize others in positions of power who perhaps also reacted poorly to the pandemic, but who did not have the same capacity, ability to respond, or authority as did the president. So, now that we've got your deflection out of the way, let's turn the attention back to Trump. Instead of defending him by nothing possible flaws of others, let's focus on what he has or has not done with respect to this particular "hoax." The floor is yours.

Link? Evidence? Nice. Resort to name-calling when you've lost. Good work. Have a nice day! Nice line from this article (https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-nw-nyt-michael-savage-sean-hannity-coronavirus-20200416-yzmfj6ogz5gmnhqi63ojhejmnq-story.html) uttered by Michael Savage's wife: Savage’s wife, Janet Weiner, said in an interview that she had noticed more compassion in her husband since his heart attack. And she sees him taking on responsibility for waking people up to what parts of American conservatism, especially in the media, have become. “This culty hero worship of the uneducated, it’s very depressing,” she said. “It makes me ashamed to be a conservative,” she added, before stopping herself. “I don’t want to identify with the conservative movement anymore.”

Watch the video. It hasn’t. Link of sequential rally clips where the hoax comment was made was posted above. It’s trumps own words. We just disagree on that point. So let’s move on to the other ones.

How am I disingenuous? Please elaborate. And when you’re done with that, please explain how the president acted properly w/r/t his “hoax,” “warm weather,” and “testing” lies. Bottom line: other people made mistakes. So the grievous errors of the guy in charge are excusable. Makes. Perfect. Sense.

Don't let facts get in the way of a good argument. Enough of that already. You forgot to mention the obstructionist Democrats in the Senate who would have denied cloture. So it's all the fault of Schumer, and China, and maybe the fake news media, like the RINO Wall Street Journal. /end sarcasm

You say "admit," implying (without basis in fact) that the WHO had something to hide. I say "confirm," based on my view that the scientists at the WHO tried to reach an evidence-based conclusion. In any event, that semantical point aside, let's assume that the WHO dropped the ball on identifying human-to-human transmission of the virus in China, and didn't properly recognize that type of spread until 1/21/2020. At that point we can all acknowledge that there was evidence of human-to-human spread of the virus. The CDC reached a similar, perhaps more grounded conclusion about 10 days later, and Trump banned travel from China to the US at approximately the same time. Still, though, Trump took no other timely, significant measures to protect this country from the virus. In point of fact, the outbreak in the New York City area probably can be traced to spread from Europe, an area with respect to which Trump took only late protective measures. Indeed, the bottom line remains that the WHO indicated that human-to-human spread was possible on or about 1/20. And weeks later Trump still derided the danger posed by the virus, suggesting that it would "disappear"" in warmer weather and characterizing it as a "hoax." And it took approximately six weeks before Trump took meaningful domestic measures to combat the virus. That delay surely contributed to the limited availability of testing with which this country still struggles, in spite of the president's lie that "anyone who wants a test can get one." Today we know that it hasn't disappeared in warmer areas, and that it's not a hoax. So, if you're going to blame the WHO for not recognizing the danger of the virus quickly enough, what's your excuse for Trump's inaction even after the likelihood of human-to-human transmission was identified? Surely you'll deem this fake news, but I'll post the links anyhow. I welcome a fact-based response. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/11/us/politics/coronavirus-trump-response.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/us/politics/coronavirus-trump-who-funding.html Fake news. Not a lot of people know this, mostly because there are so many nasty, terrible reporters in the mainstream media, but we're doing a great job. The economy's in shambles, and we have near Depression-level unemployment numbers, but that's all the fault of the Democrats because the virus is a hoax or something like that. Anyhow, things would be a lot worse if Hillary or a Democrat or a RINO or somebody besides Trump was in charge. How come it's only COVID-19 that became a problem, when there were 18 other COVIDs that could have caused a pandemic? It's because Trump beat down all of the other COVIDs, and would have done the same with this one if it wasn't for the impeachment hoax, or golfing, or Twitter, that distracted him. /end sarcasm

Yeah I’m dumb. That’s it. Name calling your way out of losing an argument isn’t going to work. Try watching the video link I posted earlier.

Actually you asked what the WHO did w/r/t the virus. I responded that a warning was issued on 1/7, and that the genetic sequence was issued on 1/12. Then, among other things, you seized upon the fact that I did not refer to another action taken by the WHO on 1/21 as reflective of your pint that I had somehow “lied.” Even using your twisted logic, the president should have known, through the WHO, of the issue re: the virus no later than 1/21. And yet he proceeded to pass the issue off as a hoax and dream it away weeks later. Finally, you mentioned that I had made false statements (plural). I’m still curious what those are. I’ll take your inability to identify those statements as proof that there were no falsities. And I’ll take your parachute out of the conversation based on your lack of desire to respond to these invented “lies” as a reflection of your admission that you can’t hang intellectually, took your ball, and went home a sore loser rather than admit defeat. have a nice night and stay healthy. With respect on your statement on prosecutors, respectfully, you’re wrong. Prosecutors don’t exonerate; that much is true. But prosecutors can no bill based on the absence of legally sufficient evidence. Mueller easily could have done that. He consciously refused to do so. on the rest of the Russia issue, surely there was some flawed reporting. But there is something to the story as a whole. The gist of the mueller report was that team trump was to inept to collude. So the media might have had parts of the story wrong, but parts too were correct. On the anonymous sources issue, with respect that’s how reporting works. Look at watergate. That doesn’t happen without anonymous sources. Sometimes reporters get played. But that’s part of how it works.

I'll try to stop back later, but the "dishonest actors" thing is something I take issue with. Bad reporting? Perhaps. Too trusting? Perhaps also tru. But just to get to the first point re: WMD, the fundamental problem was that the government (looking at you, Dick Cheney) sold a bill of goods about some yellow cake uranium nonsense. The media trusted the government, and frankly got it wrong. But the media doesn't bear primary responsibility for that. It rested with the government. Now, when the media challenges the government (watch the Trump pressers every evening), the response is that mistrust of the government somehow is problematic (those who challenge the president's views are cast as "bad reporters," or "nasty," or "terrible," or, even in the case of the WSJ, "fake news"). So I see the "dishonest actors" point as sort of trying to have things both ways. On "Russia" and its aftermath, I simply and respectfully disagree. The Mueller report (which I read) could have taken a position on legal sufficiency to exonerate the president (e.g., concluding that there is legally insufficient evidence to support an obstruction charge). The fact that Mueller refused to so conclude speaks volumes. It definitely contradicts the president's lie about "exoneration." And from my perspective it supports the public skepticism with respect to his response to the investigation into Russian interference into the 2016 presidential election.

January 21, 2020. Long before the "disappear" and "hoax" comments. Any time you're ready to respond to my other points on the merits let me know.

I answered. Even posted a link, which described the warning issued by the WHO on January 7 and the publication of relevant genetic sequencing information on January 12. Then I pointed out that, in the weeks that followed, Trump attempted to wish the virus away (it will just "disappear," he said) and characterized it as a "hoax." Rather than respond on the merits, you resorted to a falsity (indicating that I had somehow "lie[d]," without specifying how I had misspoken or attempted to mislead) and a pejorative (characterizing me as "a shitposter" not "worthy of [even the] wasting of time"). Demonizing the opponent when defeated on the merits is a common Trump tactic. You tried hard to apply it here. Unfortunately you have failed. If you have time to try to take apart my other "lies," I'll be around later. If not, have a nice day and stay healthy.

I don't know. I find it hard to believe that the media is lying when I look at clips of TRUMP'S OWN WORDS. Perhaps we can politely disagree on the context of those words. But viewing the "hoax" comment in context, I stand on my position.

I agree with you on the last point. I'll add on the fake news point that I view the "hoax" comments vastly differently from you. Sadly, the numbers Trump referenced in the context of characterizing the virus as a hoax now are nearly true - we're probably going to reach 30,000 deaths nationwide over the next few days. Those interested can judge for themselves: https://factba.se/transcript/donald-trump-speech-kag-rally-north-charleston-south-carolina-february-28-2020.