Messages

61

Politics / Re: Current Politics & History Only Thread

« on: April 16, 2020, 08:33:48 AM »

haunted, did you ever watch this video? One of your comments after I posted it said you were going to, but you edited or deleted that comment for some reason. It's less than two minutes long, check it out:


https://youtu.be/ifKbwDf51bA

62

Politics / Re: Current Politics & History Only Thread

« on: April 14, 2020, 12:57:07 AM »

it's very easy to see how weak this video is in an attempt to show... I'm still not exactly sure what it's trying to say. Maybe it's just doing such a poor job of conveying some sort of message, and that's why I don't see it.

Let's try a thought experiment:

Imagine someone presents you with a contract stipulating they'll pay you $10,000 in exchange for you merely being able to accurately gauge the intent of the video in question.

It's trying to suggest that "the media" downplayed the virus at the beginning of the situation, I guess. And then that some governors have complimented Trump, and/or his team, for the support he/they have provided.

Have you watched the Fox clip compilation that I shared? What are your thoughts on that, particularly contrasted with what Trump just shared (haunted's video)?

63

Politics / Re: Current Politics & History Only Thread

« on: April 13, 2020, 11:35:25 PM »

I wonder how frequently this would be shown if Obama had something similar. Trump says it? No problem.

64

Politics / Re: Current Politics & History Only Thread

« on: April 13, 2020, 11:27:54 PM »

Trump video haunted shared:

First woman - she stresses "right now". Also, who is she? why is what she says relevant? If Trump is going to have someone make a video he can present as some sort of argument that the press has been unfair to him (is that what this is partially supposed to do?), why not include such obviously pertinent details (at least who the woman is). How hard would it be to overlay her name? What bout Hannity on Jan 27th? Is the significance of his inclusion there him asking the question "What if it is worse?" Worse where? When? There's zero context here. What was discussed immediately prior to that comment? Should US officials get involved... where? in China? There's no context for what he's asking there. I guess Trump felt obligated to find something to try to make Hannity look good regarding his earlier comments about this thing.

Seriously, watch this video if you haven't already. Fox News is essentially Trump's propaganda outlet/mouthpiece. The video Trump shared at the press conference included Hannity saying something (without context) on January 27th. Fast forward, and take into account all the gained knowledge a month and a half later regarding Covid-19, and watch Hannity echoing Trump's talking points then, and then when Trump's tone changes in the coming days (declaring a national emergency on the 13th) how Hannity then falls in line. It's so ridiculously transparent if you pause for a moment to actually look:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifKbwDf51bA

Back to Breitbart's video shared by haunted:

Later, "President Trump orders free telehealth screenings" - This is for medicare recipients only, and how are they going to diagnose, conclusively, Covid-19 via a web chat? You have to be tested.

Later, "He was accused of making a racist move" - They show Pelosi, but quote The Hill. Which was it? Was it The Hill quoting Pelosi? Was it not Pelosi at all and this is an attack against her? On that day Trump expanded travel restrictions to mostly African countries. Pelosi didn't (not that I can find) call the move (to restrict incoming flights from China in an effort to control the spread of Covid-19) racist. This is propaganda and totally dishonest.

"NYT's Haberman hits Trump over 'misleading' audio on her coronavirus reporting"

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/492605-nyts-haberman-hits-trump-over-misleading-audio-of-her-coronavirus-reporting

"Their use of the audio is misleading," Haberman tweeted. "I went on to say I said he treated that travel limitation as a Mission Accomplished moment."

"And then he did basically nothing for over a month. Which was our story yesterday," she added in another tweet.

Again, no date for when Cuomo commended Trump's team (not Trump, yet Trump is taking credit of course). No date for CA governor's comments either.

Ron DeSantis (governor of my state) is a Trump bootlicker, essentially. Nothing remotely significant about him saying nice things about Trump. His comments are super generic too, "The President has been outstanding".

New Jersey governor asks Trump if his state can have access to a portion of the beds on the ship docked off the coast there, and Trump says yes - wow! Trump is so merciful to not deny the citizens of the state of NJ beds on that ship despite the governor being a Democrat!

Then Arizona's governor, who campaigned with/for Trump during Trump's election, has gracious things to say about Trump. Wow, shocker!

Again, who is the last guy?

Haunted, with a minimal amount of effort, it's very easy to see how weak this video is in an attempt to show... I'm still not exactly sure what it's trying to say. Maybe it's just doing such a poor job of conveying some sort of message, and that's why I don't see it.

65

Politics / Re: Current Politics & History Only Thread

« on: April 13, 2020, 09:29:02 PM »

If Trump decides to fire Dr. Fauci, would you guys support that decision? Fauci did an interview in the past few days (I don't recall which news outlet), and in that interview he commented that lives would have been saved if action had been taken sooner. I presume that there was some sort of implication that Trump didn't act as swiftly as Fauci, or the CDC, or otherwise relevant experts had advised him to, and that directly lead to some increase in the impact Covid-19 has had on the country.

Of course that can be interpreted as a direct criticism of Trump's decisions, and I think it's fair to say that that never comes without a cost if you're working for Trump. Trump retweeted something a day or two ago that had the #firefauci hashtag on it (but that didn't appear to be the focus of the Tweet - it was at the bottom). Because of that, and because of Fauci's apparent admission that Trump didn't do everything perfectly, the talk of Fauci being fired has been discussed. On various social media outlets it's full blown - many people want Fauci fired (because of his criticism, and of course other added-in likely-imagined narratives about him working under/for the Obama admin, etc., and therefore he's compromised, or has an "agenda").

So, Fauci doesn't toe the line, and gets fired - you guys for it?

66

Politics / Re: Current Politics & History Only Thread

« on: April 13, 2020, 09:20:28 PM »

First video is pretty tastyspleen-forums-esque in proving a point(the real life version of "owning" someone in an e-argument).

I'm not really sure what point the video was trying to make. People have commended Tump's actions regarding Covid-19, and some of them have done it on camera? They don't even list the name of the last guy in the video - who is he? why is what he says relevant? The quote from NY's Cuomo wasn't given a date - when did he say that? Same with California's governor.

67

Politics / Re: Current Politics & History Only Thread

« on: April 08, 2020, 06:28:16 PM »

Is the takeaway really that Schumer doesn't know how to wear a mask, or that he walks around with it like that all the time?

68

Politics / Re: Current Politics & History Only Thread

« on: April 02, 2020, 03:40:15 PM »

Only one short paragraph in the article attempts to provide examples of said misinformation

That sounds more like a ding against the article for not supporting the claim, not that the claim itself doesn't have other forms of supporting evidence elsewhere.

It is reasonable to believe that chloroquine phosphate and hydroxychloroquine sulfate may be effective in treating COVID-19.

That doesn't sound like a particularly strong endorsement to me. Sounds like typical Trump speak, honestly ("this could be a game changer, and it might not be"). Makes me wonder if the White House put pressure on the FDA behind the scenes to pass that. The EU hasn't made the same decision and is waiting for clinical trials. Yes, it's a form of, but where did the guy get the idea? I concede you can't blame his (or his wife's) stupidity on Trump, but if Trump wasn't touting it (wasn't it Trump that brought it up, not Fauci, Birx, etc.?), that wouldn't have happened - people trust Trump, even though he doesn't know what he's saying much of the time. If, in the end, it turns out that this medication is effective, what are the odds Trump doesn't gloat incessantly about how he was right all along? Contrast that with him refusing to take any responsibility for the other failings seen so far. "Trump always takes credit, but never responsibility."

Trump is and has been spreading misinformation at his news conferences, and it's hard to argue against the notion that it's taken a toll, though I don't think there'd be a way to ever measure the extent.

Instead, Pakman describes Trump's remarks as, "another one of those horrible examples that shows Donald Trump's utter lack of concern for the human toll."

Trump's first tweet (afaik) about this said that the media was going "crazy" because of his high ratings. Why did he bring that up? Is he saying that the media hates, i.e., is jealous, that his ratings are so high? That's what it sounds like to me. Is that entirely inconsistent with Pakman's comment? Trump thinks other people think like him, that they're bothered because Trump is getting all this attention, and not that it's simply because a lot of people take Trump's words over experts/doctors. When he, and all his cronies (Fox News, etc.), had been downplaying this issue, contrary to the messaging of practically (if not literally) all experts, for 2 months or more, there's a legitimate reason to be concerned about what information people are receiving with something as serious as this.

And look at that silly video in that tweet you shared, complete with the patriotic imagery, inspirational/emotional music score behind it - give me a break. I think he's just clueless how to empathize with other people, so the closest and best way he can fake it is by downplaying a serious issue, thereby giving people "false hope".

69

Politics / Re: Current Politics & History Only Thread

« on: April 01, 2020, 07:01:54 PM »

A breakdown of when Trump just recently seemed boastful about the "ratings" of his recent press conferences:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWIKBYYMc2M

70

Politics / Re: Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Thread

« on: March 31, 2020, 06:20:17 PM »

Not sure if this belongs here or the politics thread.

71

Politics / Re: Current Politics & History Only Thread

« on: March 29, 2020, 04:42:42 PM »

Remember how just before Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump began their campaigns, the Clintons invited Trump over for some sort of off-the-record "meeting"?

Nope. First time I've heard of that.

72

Politics / Re: Current Politics & History Only Thread

« on: March 28, 2020, 02:38:48 AM »

Yeah but... what kind of an ASSHOLE wouldn't be grateful for aid at the moment?

Best way to get back at the governors who don't kiss your ass? Make the people of their states suffer!

73

Jokes / Re: Funny videos

« on: March 28, 2020, 12:18:35 AM »

Requires sound (~40 seconds):


https://www.instagram.com/p/B99wqM0AyEy/

74

Politics / Re: Current Politics & History Only Thread

« on: March 27, 2020, 11:42:44 PM »

"Trump says he's directed Pence not to call governors who aren't 'grateful' for federal aid"

https://www.wtkr.com/news/national/white-house-coronavirus-task-force-to-hold-daily-briefing-after-trump-signs-stimulus-bill

75

Politics / Re: Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Thread

« on: March 27, 2020, 10:10:55 PM »

If his phone battery was dead, how did he know four units called him.

My guess would be that they informed him of that when they got there.