SectionC3

Earlier I noted that Matt Drudge is turning on Trump. Here’s a story to that effect: https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/18/media/matt-drudge-trump/index.html Before anyone says, “It’s a CNN link. That’s fake news!,” let it be known that I copied the link from the Drudge Report. Unless that’s now fake news, too ...

Q-baby 1; Foxx 0.

I tried. I called my primary care physician, and he said that trump had no scientific or medical basis for his claims. That guy is a lib snowflake, so that was to be expected. For the past several hours I’ve been on hold with the office of the physician who said, without even examining the 44 presidents who preceded him, that Trump is the healthiest president ever. I figure anybody who believes the Trump would throw a beat down Into Teddy Roosevelt is a sure bet to give me a script for this. is this too much winning? Asking for a friend. Solid point. I’ll have to be sure to tel the doc I’m on hold with that this being the month of April is fake news spread by the biased liberal media.

Why are zinc and the AB necessary? I thought the prez said we could whack this stuff down on the sand and see what happens. Bottom line according to Doc: Brazil study is bunk part b/c zinc and AB weren't used. The prez said to guzzle this stuff without mentioning zinc and the AB. Which, by Doc's logic, makes the prez's claim on this point . . . bunk. Sigh.

What about France and China? I’m not a doctor - it’s a serious question.

Different topic, but you’re right about that. Sauids want to put the squeeze on our (more expensive) domestic production, too. I agree w trump on this one that prices can’t fall too low for fear of hurting domestic producers.

Link? Proof? Are getting means present tense, so it has to be a contemporaneous example. Just in case Trump does the radio show and Doc or anyone else gives him a jingle, it looks like the trump miracle drug might not be effective after all: https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2020-04-17/malaria-drugs-fails-to-help-coronavirus-patients-in-controlled-studies all of the side effects without any of the benefits. In case he’s still planning on sucking some of this stuff down as a preventative measure, somebody with medical credentials that he trusts (aside from Dr. Nick Riviera; couldn’t resist adding to the Simpsons references here) should let him know.

In other words, if he would act responsibly he’d solve a lot of his own problems.

more whataboutism re the deblasio reference. We’ve been over this.

It’s not a refusal to admit. It’s a refusal to address a point immaterial to this debate. If were going to get into Obama, we may as well explore Reagan’s response to AIDS and Woodrow Wilson’s response to the “Spanish” flu. Those points have no bearing on the efficacy of Trump’s response, and the question of Obama’s response to a different pandemic at a different time likewise is of no relevance here.

1. Not. The. Issue. 2. He did call it a hoax. And assuming he didn’t, the point remains that his attention was focused on a figmentary hoax of some sort when it should have been figured on solving the problem. One half measure (but still a good measure, to be clear) - the significant restriction on China travel - does not excuse the other failures.

1. More whataboutism. Obama is not the issue. 2. I never said that nobody was working on a vax since January. What I said was that the administration didn’t prioritize it. Instead the president was focused on hoaxes and warm weather and miracle cures. That’s not fake news. That’s what actually happened. And he should be held to account for it. 3. The were other proactive approaches. Like encouraging the use of masks. And modeling social distancing. Trump undermined both approaches on a daily basis, and he continues to undermine at least the distancing approach in his pressers.

Or clarified.

Nobody said that. Try reading a little lore carefully. If the vax takes 12 to 18 months to develop, test, and produce, and if (as it is in this instance), happens to be mildly important, wouldn’t it be better to start the work sooner that later? Like making it a priority in early January? The vax is on ply the key to like, getting the economy open and halting the pandemic. But it was better to focus on hoaxes and jiggery pockery like warm weather and some unproven drug that may or may not work for some patients. But you have your opinion and I mine. Have a nice night. And skip the name calling until you improve your reading comprehension. There’s a difference between delaying and prioritizing. You think the government prioritized the issue before early April? Why not move some of the Johnson and Johnson money into play in January? Im here for your response. One more thing. You’re right I’m blaming trump for his role in this mess. The buck stops with him.

Who said anything about developing one in three months? I think the point was pretty clear: the earlier we start, the earlier we finish. So if it’s going to take 12 to 18 months, better to get a jump on things. Or we can talk about hoaxes and warm weather. I prefer the former, proactive approach. You’re fine with the latter. And that’s cool. We just agree to disagree. That’s nice. Resort to insults. Great conversation. Have a nice night.

You didn't walk anything back. Trump did. I quoted it. Snopes saw confusion in Trump's remarks. You interpret them as Snopes did. Politico, among others, similarly saw confusion, but interpreted the remarks in a different way. I take it you don't trust Politico, since you seemed to have ignored that post. It's clear that I'm with the "Poiltico" understanding of what was said. And my case is strengthened by the points that the president had to walk the statement back, that the walkback was vague at best, and that the president's actions during the same time period were consistent with the view that he saw the virus as a hoax and proceeded accordingly.

Can you link to a specific video or video? There seem to be dozens of videos there. *** I assume this is the walkback that you're going to get to: “The ‘hoax’ was used with respect to Democrats and what they were saying,” Trump said. “It was a ‘hoax,’ what they were saying.” A couple of points there. If the statement was so clear in the first place, then there would be no need to walk it back. And, if the walk back was truthful, wouldn't it be easy to identify the "Democrats" and specify "what they were saying" that constitutes a "hoax?"

Link?

That made me laugh. Well done.

So educate me on the creation of a vaccine. Why could nothing have been done earlier? I'm serious. Let me know. And on NYC, as Italy has shown us, population density is an enormous factor in how this is spread. So of course it's going to be easier to contain in Washington than it would be in NYC. Blaming is different from assessing, Doc. Despite your efforts at deflection, the issue remains Trump, and whether he could have done better. Apparently you think he could not have improved upon his performance. I completely disagree. It seems as if you and I should leave it at that. But you'll take the time to explain why you won't do the "minimal" work. Makes. Perfect. Sense.

That's great. Distills to "I think you're wrong, but I won't tell you how you're wrong!" Sorry, Joe. Not sure what that means.

January. The sequence has been known since January. And nothing was done about it. Why? The earlier we start, the earlier we finish. The rest of the post is mostly blame game. "Any country could make a vaccine." Sure. Why didn't the (nationalist) leader of our country get on the hop to get it done here to protect our country? HCQ might have promise, but it shouldn't be taken casually as the president has suggested, because the side effects might outweigh the benefits. NYC is a different kettle of fish from Seattle, and to a point from Cali. Could Cuomo have done better? Maybe. But could the president have done better? Yes. The issue here isn't Cuomo. It's Trump. And it's stunning that you can't admit that he played a huge part in this historic mess. Bottom line: you have nothing intelligent to say. Tell me again about the politicization efforts at the time the president made that statement. I'm all ears.

So was it the virus that was the hoax? Or some actions of the Democrats? And if it was Democractic actions, why were they a hoax? Because the virus wasn't to be taken seriously? That leads us back to . . . the virus is a hoax. You'll respond several times to dodge giving an answer, but won't give what you hint is a simple answer. Makes. Perfect. Sense.

And yet you can't refute the logic.

Still waiting.