What's new
By:

The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

colton said:
No serious news outlet is saying that Trump instructed Americans to inject Lysol into their veins and to drink bleach.
Click to expand...
Well, this may come down to a question of semantics, and I don't watch CNN or MSNBC (or Fox News) nor have heard any other major news outlet say that he said that [other than the fact that many people on social media seem to be saying that], but on a cursory glance:

Colton: "No serious news outlet is saying that Trump instructed Americans to inject Lysol into their veins and to drink bleach."
MSNBC: "The president is talking about injecting disinfectants into American's bodies to cure coronavirus."



CNN:

3ymhwp.jpg
 
Last edited:
Trump didn't actually instruct any Americans to inject disinfectant.
He just said that maybe injecting disinfectant would be a good way to kill the virus.



Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
silesian said:
Who said this at CNN and MSNBC?
Click to expand...

I’m open to the possibility that a cnn/MSNBC anchor misrepresented trump. Just show me the evidence. It’s gotta be out there because the right wing is watching and would be posting it all over social media if it happened.
 
infection said:
Well, this may come down to a question of semantics, and I don't watch CNN or MSNBC (or Fox News) nor have heard any other major news outlet say that he said that [other than the fact that many people on social media seem to be saying that], but on a cursory glance:

Colton: "No serious news outlet is saying that Trump instructed Americans to inject Lysol into their veins and to drink bleach."
MSNBC: "The president is talking about injecting disinfectants into American's bodies to cure coronavirus."



CNN:

3ymhwp.jpg
Click to expand...

It's entirely accurate to say he suggested it as a possible treatment. I mean, he did, we've got the video evidence. It's inaccurate to say that he instructed people to do so. And I doubt any news outlets reported the latter as has been claimed.
 
Someone with as much power as the president, and as much a demagogue as Trump, will be taken to understand that anything he says is a directive. It is reasonable to assume that some people will translate this into "I need to inject lysol into my veins to protect against the coronavirus". It was highly irresponsible for him to spitball **** like that and have no consequences from it.

It is no different than that time my wife was talking about a neighbor that was bugging her, and not really in a terrible way, just referred to her as a "yard nazi" or something because she tended to get on people who didn't mow their lawn twice a week. So my daughter heard this, and innocently went outside to play. Well soon the neighbor came by for some reason and my daughter ran inside yelling "mommy that yard nazi lady is here!"

Trump speaks and minions listen, regardless of the **** he spews or who tries to counter it. And you will have plenty of people who will take the ridicule from the media as reinforcement that Trump is right.

Somewhere some mindless zombie trump supporter is going to inject himself (it will almost always be a male "hold my beer" style) and die as a result or get violently ill, not unlike the dude that tried chloroquine (albeit that guy did not claim he did it because Trump said so).

So regardless of semantics, it is highly irresponsible for a person in his position to make any kind of speculation or claim like that in that setting. Plenty of people look to that as if it is the Trump instruction hour and will take what he says seriously. That by itself should make him an accessory if someone follows through and dies from it. The whole "person in a position of power" thing applies.
 
infection said:
Well, this may come down to a question of semantics, and I don't watch CNN or MSNBC (or Fox News) nor have heard any other major news outlet say that he said that [other than the fact that many people on social media seem to be saying that], but on a cursory glance:

Colton: "No serious news outlet is saying that Trump instructed Americans to inject Lysol into their veins and to drink bleach."
MSNBC: "The president is talking about injecting disinfectants into American's bodies to cure coronavirus."
Click to expand...

You think the difference between "instructed Americans to" and "talking about" is merely semantic? Odd. I agree that Trump did not instruct Americans to inject disinfectant, yet certainly was talking about injecting disinfectants, and see them as separate things.
 
One Brow said:
You think the difference between "instructed Americans to" and "talking about" is merely semantic? Odd. I agree that Trump did not instruct Americans to inject disinfectant, yet certainly was talking about injecting disinfectants, and see them as separate things.
Click to expand...
I qualified my statements that I hadn’t been watching media, only people responding to it with the idea that he recommended that. And, as I said, that was my cursory search. No, it does not say ‘instructs,’ but rather ‘suggests.’ By all technical definitions, it could be argued that he suggested that, as in his conversation was something along the lines of “that’s interesting, you said we’re going to look in to that,” or suggest that things be researched, but would there be any fundamental difference in headlines between “Trump suggests injecting disinfectant as treatment for Coronavirus” vs. “Trump suggests researching injecting injecting disinfectant as treatment for Coronavirus”? If the concern legitimately is that people will go out and do this at his behest, which would be more likely to see that come to fruition, watching Trump pontificate on possible things to “look into,” or tags like this stating that he offered medical advice?

3ysuvc.jpg


To be clear, what he said was stupid. But, stating he offered medical advice or people getting the impression he suggested this as more than ‘something to look into’ [or neglecting to contextualize that last part] only further distracts from how stupid the thing he said was, as this entire discussion has proved.
 
One Brow said:
You think the difference between "instructed Americans to" and "talking about" is merely semantic? Odd. I agree that Trump did not instruct Americans to inject disinfectant, yet certainly was talking about injecting disinfectants, and see them as separate things.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Because what Joe Bagadonuts is saying is that MSNBC and CNN explicitly stated that Trump told Americans to inject disinfectants. That's the whole issue under debate. I don't watch them so I am still waiting for evidence, who said it, what did they say, etc.

If Chris Cuomo or Don Lemon said "Trump told Americans to inject disinfectant," that lie would exposed by a Breitbart and Fox News headline in two microseconds.
 
Trump is very happy that we are debating this point and not talking about 25 million newly unemployed and the miles long food banks.
 
infection said:
By all technical definitions, it could be argued that he suggested that, as in his conversation was something along the lines of “that’s interesting, you said we’re going to look in to that,” or suggest that things be researched, but would there be any fundamental difference in headlines between “Trump suggests injecting disinfectant as treatment for Coronavirus” vs. “Trump suggests researching injecting injecting disinfectant as treatment for Coronavirus”? If the concern legitimately is that people will go out and do this at his behest, which would be more likely to see that come to fruition, watching Trump pontificate on possible things to “look into,” or tags like this stating that he offered medical advice?
Click to expand...

The distinction between "suggests injecting" and "suggests researching injecting" is something I would grant to anyone who supports the notion of using scientific studies as a precursor to actual medical treatment as a general principle. However, Trump has also supported the notion of Right to Try, and complained about how it takes too long for medications to get approved. From a person who says we should be able to bypass scientific studies entirely, saying "we should try this" is effectively authorizing people to do it.

As for the notion that discussing the details of his stupidity detracts from discussing his stupidity, I find that curious. I think that only applies to people who feel obliged to defend the President.
 
silesian said:
Trump is very happy that we are debating this point and not talking about 25 million newly unemployed and the miles long food banks.
Click to expand...

Trump is never happy when people are making fun of him. A more typical politician, perhaps, would prefer this, but not Trump.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top