We’re talking about the will of the people in 2016, not in 1789. People alive in 1789 don’t get to vote anymore.
Not at all. I’ll happily consider whatever you think is in the video. Just summarize it here, because you don’t get to waste my time by sending me down a YouTube rabbit hole.
[quote=“burrunderthe_saddle, post:299, topic:850702”]
To simply respond to the OP, I personally prefer republican/Trump lies more than democrat/Obama lies
To elaborate further I abhor democrats viral path to socialism!
[/QUOTE]I gave up on the first list when fact-checkers reported that other administrations (like Reagan’s) did avoid the War Powers Resolution many times, and there was mostly anger from a few congress critters to report. And as soon as The Washington Moony Times and Laura Ingraham are used as cites, then the whole thing is unconvincing.
At least Obama didn’t talk like Trump about injecting disinfectant into lungs during a pandemic, when it is already known that several conservative viewers are bound to understand and do the worse with his “advice”.
Pacific Crest Trail Documentary: A YEAR OF ICE AND FIRE
[quote=“burrunderthe_saddle, post:303, topic:850702”]
Pacific Crest Trail Documentary: A YEAR OF ICE AND FIRE
[/QUOTE]It seems you haven’t quite got the hang of this effective communication and debate thing.
I think we’re being told to take a hike.
[quote=“burrunderthe_saddle, post:303, topic:850702”]
Pacific Crest Trail Documentary: A YEAR OF ICE AND FIRE
[/QUOTE]Again, I’m not giving you my time by sitting through a video documentary. I encourage you to spend your own time summarizing whatever you think is in there.
That is how our Constitution works. A majority vote one day only requires a majority vote to repeal later. A supermajority (Constitutional provision) one day requires a supermajority repeal later.
I mean, you wouldn’t be comfortable with a majority vote to ban free speech, right? Well, why do those dead guys from 1789 get a say?
I’m with Wrenching Spammers on the prior page. I don’t defend Trump generally. He is a liar, a braggart, and an all around asshole. The comments he made about this show an alarming lack of general medical knowledge (e.g. yes a disinfectant will kill a virus on a countertop, but there is no need to “look into” seeing if it will work inside the human body; everyone knows it is incredibly poisonous).
However this type of attack is profoundly irresponsible. In no way did he tell anyone to drink bleach or ingest cleaning products yet the first two pages of a Google search state that he did. And not from wacko sources, mainstream ones:
NBC Headline: ‘It’s irresponsible and it’s dangerous’: Experts rip Trump’s idea of injecting disinfectant to treat COVID-19
The Guardian: Donald Trump’s prescription for coronavirus: quite literally toxic
CNN: Fact check: Trump dangerously suggests sunlight and ingesting disinfectants could help cure coronavirus
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/23/politics/fact-check-coronavirus-briefing-april-23/index.html
BBC: Coronavirus: Outcry after Trump suggests injecting disinfectant as treatment
This is just a sampling. Your side has enough ammunition against Trump without these outright falsehoods. All they do is feed into the right wing talking point that the media is “fake news” and out to get Trump.
Non-sequitur. I am well aware of how the constitution works. Regarding Presidential elections, the Constitution places no weight on the will of the people. Therefore, sometimes a presidential election doesn’t reflect the will of the people. That’s happened before, and it happened in 2016. The people chose Hillary Clinton by a wide margin.
My comments about 1789 were in response to a weak argument upthread that since the Constitution sprung from the will of the people (dubious), then every election that springs from it represents from the will of the people (false, the Electoral College represents the will of states as entities, not as people).
If you want to argue that impeachment overturns an election, that’s a weak argument, but we can have it. But when more people voted for the losing candidate, you may not argue that the election was the democratically expressed will of the people.
I’m with you on this. Trump suggested something unbelievably stupid, but he did not tell people to drink disinfectants, and I don’t think that kind of hyperbole serves any good purpose.
However he did suggest getting disinfectants into the lungs to treat the virus. Which… I don’t know who needs to hear this, but inhaling disinfectants is a bad idea and will hurt you. If you think I’m wrong, give it the sniff test, but please just take my word for it.
Is it. Let’s have a look at the context of each one of the links where I searched for the word “bleach”:
Opinion piece by Marina Hyde (incorrectly attributed drinking bleach):
So, in your sampling, only one can be reasonably said to be incorrectly attributed to Trump saying people should ingest bleach. It was an opinion piece.
I know you’re not defending Trump. But you’re wrong about your conclusions on what the media is reporting about what he said.
Yes, UltraVires, what QuickSilver said, and you need to read what I said earlier.
I actually did say also that: Trump is having it both ways "when it is already known that several conservative viewers are bound to understand and do the worse with his “advice”.
In other words it was a reference to how Trump does talk and it actually makes the right wing media to fall for the “explanation” that people like you and me get, but at the same time that media is ignoring that many on the right are known already to fall for the overall talking point that this is a hoax (Here I’m referring to the anti vaccine points from antivaxxers that are being used with no sarcasm whatsoever by many of the anti-lockdown protesters) and that the “explanation” does not get the same push by the right wing media as the original messed up say so.
I could also go for the less charitable point and take what he said as “sarcasm” (as he explained later) but the result is becoming usual nowadays: Trump just tossed you and many others in the conservative media under the bus as the “learned” explanations and excuses to his messy misleading messaging are no longer operative.
Wait. He is now saying that was sarcasm?
Can you guys help me? I’m from the real world, I’ve been stuck in this bizzaro version for 3 years now, anyone know the way home?
I don’t think I saw that in mainstream media at all, but Liberal Twitter is alight with bleach-drinking rants today.
I already mentioned that we shouldn’t drink or inhale bleach, and we should also not form our opinions of liberal media from whatever’s happening on Twitter.
The “sarcasm” explanation is beyond ludicrous. The tape shows that he is NOT talking to reporters, but to the science professionals. The tape further shows that he is asking them serious questions.
No one with an IQ over 60 could possibly doubt that Trump was seriously advocating potentially lethal actions. He wasn’t being sarcastic.
But he never said to inject or drink anything. Period. Nothing close to it.
These mainstream sources are suggesting that he indeed said that. If a few idiots start drinking bleach and dying because they saw on CNN or on Facebook or on Twitter that their President said to do so (when he didn’t say that) then whose fault is it that some inject or drink these items?
It belies their agenda. It’s not enough to report the incredibly stupid thing he did say, they have to make him sound even stupider and possibly kill people in the process.
Again, I’m not here to defend Trump, and I don’t believe his new “it was all sarcasm” line either. But the mainstream news outlets cannot howl when Trump calls them “fake news” when they report fake things.
He’s right that it would do a tremendous number on the lungs.
Not in a good way, though.
Yep.
UltraVires what running coach said
"WHAT would he have to do short of murder on live TV to see him as a malignant cancer on our country?"
How about the President of the United States seriously proposing that the scientific community investigate injecting household cleaners as a cure for the pandemic. How about the President making such a suggestion as though it would be a revelation to scientists - a product of his stable genius.
Trump makes “Dr. Strangelove” look like a documentary.
I know that you are a smart guy and are capable of reading your own quote.
He asked his medical advisor if there was a way we could look into seeing if an injection into the lungs would help with the virus.
How is that telling people to inject or drink anything? How is it even close?
Has your hatred of Trump caused you to be simply unable to see the difference between suggesting a course of action to medical professionals to research an issue, subject it to rigorous trials, then if it works, allowing it to be administered to patients VERSUS direct advice to patients to take that course of action?
You agree that those are different right? So why are they the same when Trump says it?
The ludicrous comments about injecting disinfectants can be defended:
The stable genius was brainstorming, hoping some other genius would jump from the idea to a more viable scheme. Hooray that we have a Leader with creative outside-the-box thinking!
But then the stable genius tells us that he wasn’t brainstorming, that it was subtle sarcasm to provoke reporters he doesn’t like.
What I would like to hear from Trump supporters is a defense of this second claim. To understand why, at a time of great crisis when people need reassuring leadership, subtle sarcasm is what POTUS finds appropriate. I’d like to hear an answer to this, not just from Trump supporters but from everyone who thought impeaching and convicting this oaf was inappropriate.
I think I know the answer: The second statement, claiming the first was just sarcasm, was itself sarcastic. What do I win?
Have you seen Déjà Vu, the movie with Denzel Washington? Right now the Washington character is operating in 2013 Manhattan, trying to publish the video showing Trump raping and murdering a 13-year old girl on Park Avenue before Roger Stone erases it. With that video uploaded, Trump gets only 41% of the 2016 vote and Hillary becomes Potus.
The bad news is: Even then the bizarro time-line doesn’t disappear. Console yourself with happy thoughts of the trillions of other babale’s that didn’t lurch into this god-forsaken timeline.