I quoted that article(plus others) just upthread.
You left out some crucial details.
Lots of irony in here.
No. You are not even close to making a convincing case.
The headline makes a claim. The article supports that claim.
That is not what outright lying looks like.
What did I possibly leave out except for the claim in the first paragraph that Trump falsely said that such products “could cure” the virus?
Oh, it was 13 last year, not 18. Sorry about that.
Nobody died or required hospitalization suggesting that they didn’t drink or inject anything.
They called because they were afraid of accidental exposure, not because they had deliberately drank it.
Millions of people are home and abusing alcohol. The “same 18 hour period” last year (because of the leap year) was 9:00pm Tuesday to 3:00p.m. Wednesday when people were at work or the night before work. This year, many more had Friday off and may have been drunk.
Last year at this time many people were asleep or at work for most of that time whereas this year, they were awake and at home. And as I said, more people at home means more accidental exposure to household cleaners. The word is the first part of household: house.
There is nothing in that article to suggest that one single person ingested household cleaners as a cure for the virus, then got sick and scared and called poison control. Nothing at all.
Of course Drudge links this article with: Spike in ingesting cleaners following Trump comments.
Come now. Criticise him for what he did; don’t support this yellow journalism.
The article implies a causal connection between Trump’s comments and implies deliberate ingestion of household cleaners. The article utterly fails to support that.
If we want to banter back and forth about what is a “lie” then we can do it in some other thread. It is terribly misleading.
The words are gibberish, and you’re interpreting them completely unreasonably. This was gibberish in which the only comprehensible portion was maybe we should try injecting disinfectant. And maybe doctor’s should be involved. Or something.
Dangerous gibberish, that you, for some reason, are trying to interpret in a ridiculous way just so he doesn’t look quite so stupid and dangerous.
Trump suggested that maybe injecting disinfectant could be effective in fighting the disease. Of course it’s causal if some people hear that and then consider that maybe ingesting disinfectant could help protect them!
Oh, come off it.
Clear enough?
You are seeing this through your anti-Trump glasses. Let’s simplify it.
When you ask someone to “look into” something so you can advise others, are you telling the others to do it and do it now? For anything in life? If you ask your wife to “look into” your finances to see if you can afford to buy a new car for your 16 year old son, are you telling your son to go out and buy a new car?
Give me one example of telling person A to look into something is a positive directive to person B to act on what person A is looking into?
How is this gibberish? It’s English.
I guess not to me. Different cleaners, sure. Anything in there about people saying, “But our Great President said this was good for me?!?!”
Anything in there not inconsistent with simply more people being at home instead of at work or asleep?
The article implies a serious charge which it simply does not back up. 30 versus 13 in NYC is not exactly a scientific sample which supports the implication that people are enjoying a mason jar full of Clorox across the nation.
The President didn’t ask anyone to “look into” this. He publicly spit out nonsense gibberish about maybe injecting disinfectant.
This is how a president would ask a doctor on his staff to look into something:
(in a private meeting) – “Listen, maybe this sounds ridiculous, but if disinfectant kills the virus, is there some way we can get this disinfectant into the body to kill the virus?”
That’s not what Trump did, because he’s a clown with no self-control. He publicly spouted nonsense about maybe injecting disinfectant, and his fans will take that seriously because they think he’s a genius. That’s dangerous and indefensible.
Well, UltaVires continues to miss the point I made, one can make a point about Trump not really saying that thing about injecting cleanser (but many groups that do fact checking already reported that he did) but it is clear the intended targets do get the meaning that it is dear to them, and so they get validation from the Cheeto in Chief.
What he misses (and many others too) is that there is a mess of people that ignore the “correction” and continue with dangerous ignorance.
And in context, the excuse Trump came with later is indeed idiotic, there were already reports on where “his idea” likely came from.
Thus disproving your argument that any bleach ingestions/exposures can be laid at the feet of the media.
I’ll go on record conceding that, although there’s a risk someone will listen to Trump on this, it’s unlikely anybody will actually do it. (I mean there’s always one or two nutballs, but we can write those off ass flukes).
“Hydroxychloroquinine” is something most people haven’t heard of, and hence are likely to give the benefit of being a miracle cure if sympathetic authority figures say so. That’s why people rushed out to follow Trump’s advice and poison themselves with fish tank additives, and are even now disputing the media saying “don’t do that”.
And this is what gives the lie to what (I think) is your core thesis. You need to concede that if anyone actually treats themselves with household cleaners, it’s not because one or two media outlets took some license with ridicule. History shows that Trump supporters believe the media when it agrees with Trump, and they ignore the media when it contradicts Trump. Trump is solely to blame for the harm he causes; the media is only to blame because they should have stopped airing him long ago.
That’s the honest debate that you should concede at this point.
The article supports the claim in the headline. It is not required to support claims that you inferred.
Are “you” the President of the United States?
Are “you” speaking at a nationally-televised briefing on a deadly pandemic currently gripping the globe?
If not, how is this analogy even remotely useful in elucidating the topic of whether Donald Trump should, or should not, say certain things in his press conferences?
The point is not that citizens may be resorting to injecting household cleaners. The point is that the President of the United States, in the midst of a crisis, is publicly babbling childish absurdities.
Illinois tops 40,000 coronavirus cases as more poison control calls reported
Of course Illinois went to Clinton by 17 points. Therefore fake news or something.
I stand corrected. Folks really are using household cleaners!
I feel that I understand mad emperors in history a lot better now. Genuinely.