The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

[Gameface]

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?

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.

That difference in wording is important.

That said, why would Trump use his live Pandemic Press Briefing to spitball like that? The explanation is unavoidable. He had not conducted a sufficient private briefing before the press briefing, had not sufficiently updated himself on current efforts as per his top medical advisors, had not investigated his potential solutions (introducing UV rays into the body or injecting disinfectants), had not suggested these ideas to people who may have greater expertise than himself, had not approached the press briefing as a competent, professional and capable President of the United States of America. Instead, he used his on-air time to spitball nonsense. That's what our President did. He used his time to that is supposed to be used to update the American people and provide them with valuable information and reassurance, to instead just wing it and suggest things your average 10 year old would know better than to suggest.

That is unacceptable. Period. It is not okay.

Donald Trump needs to grow up and start taking his job seriously. Like right now.

 

[infection]

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.

It does take too long for medications to get approved. 10 years. There are many reasons why that's the case, but I've mentioned before that a "cure" would not come from a novel agent. Further, Right to Try is not a Trump concept. Right to Try is employed when all other options are exhausted and prognosis is grim. It's exercised in unique circumstances (these are unique circumstances). None of those fundamentally would be argued to be bad, as you take Trump out of the equation and those ideas have long been accepted by virtually everyone. I'm also confused where Right to Try came up. Which medications was Trump pushing Right to Try for?

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.

Not certain if your last statement is an implication of me feeling that way, but if so I'd hope you'd expand on that with some detail.

 

[infection]

That difference in wording is important.

That said, why would Trump use his live Pandemic Press Briefing to spitball like that? The explanation is unavoidable. He had not conducted a sufficient private briefing before the press briefing, had not sufficiently updated himself on current efforts as per his top medical advisors, had not investigated his potential solutions (introducing UV rays into the body or injecting disinfectants), had not suggested these ideas to people who may have greater expertise than himself, had not approached the press briefing as a competent, professional and capable President of the United States of America. Instead, he used his on-air time to spitball nonsense. That's what our President did. He used his time to that is supposed to be used to update the American people and provide them with valuable information and reassurance, to instead just wing it and suggest things your average 10 year old would know better than to suggest.

That is unacceptable. Period. It is not okay.

Donald Trump needs to grow up and start taking his job seriously. Like right now.

Yes, and if anyone were to want to use that for gain against Trump, it'd be an easy thing to not **** up. Just like Trump's connection to Epstein. It's an easy thing to not **** up. But, alas.

 

[Gameface]

Yes, and if anyone were to want to use that for gain against Trump, it'd be an easy thing to not **** up. Just like Trump's connection to Epstein. It's an easy thing to not **** up. But, alas.

I don't know if this is the right post to respond to with this or if this is the right thread to post this in, but...

If it is Trump vs Biden I'm voting for none of the above.

Biden's sexual assault allegation has only become more and more credible. I think he should do the right thing and withdraw before it's too late for the DNC.

 

[infection]

I don't know if this is the right post to respond to with this or if this is the right thread to post this in, but...

If it is Trump vs Biden I'm voting for none of the above.

Biden's sexual assault allegation has only become more and more credible. I think he should do the right thing and withdraw before it's too late for the DNC.

It'd be interesting to see what happens with it. Now is early enough that theoretically that could happen. My understanding is that the recent Larry King interview story was broke by people on the left, and shortly after the actual video surfaced from right-wing media. This should suggest that right-wing media would have preferred the timing later, obviously, when there can't really be a replacement. But in that vein, the avoidance of the issue (though people will say this is not being avoided) will delay this too long for there to be a replacement, should that avoidance continue. If Democrats addressed this now rather than later, they'd be able to push for a different candidate. I don't believe dragging feet will be helpful. But, I do believe if it continued to be largely ignored that it's not going to have that large of an effect, especially with what the ability to fall back on the default of "but Trump," which is currently playing out.

 

[One Brow]

It does take too long for medications to get approved. 10 years. There are many reasons why that's the case, but I've mentioned before that a "cure" would not come from a novel agent. Further, Right to Try is not a Trump concept. Right to Try is employed when all other options are exhausted and prognosis is grim. It's exercised in unique circumstances (these are unique circumstances). None of those fundamentally would be argued to be bad, as you take Trump out of the equation and those ideas have long been accepted by virtually everyone. I'm also confused where Right to Try came up. Which medications was Trump pushing Right to Try for?

Right to Try is not just applied to specific medications, it's become the subject of legislatures without invoking any individual medication, and a notion that Trump has supported.

Not certain if your last statement is an implication of me feeling that way, but if so I'd hope you'd expand on that with some detail.

I'm not certain if my last sentence described you. It certainly described posters like Joe Bagadonuts. Your takes are definitely more measured and careful.

 

[One Brow]

I don't know if this is the right post to respond to with this or if this is the right thread to post this in, but...

If it is Trump vs Biden I'm voting for none of the above.

Biden's sexual assault allegation has only become more and more credible. I think he should do the right thing and withdraw before it's too late for the DNC.

I don't know if I will vote for Biden or not. I respect those who say he is less of a rapist than Trump (lesser of two evils), and those who who say they won't vote for any rapist period. I do believe Tara Reade. Biden stepping aside would be ideal.

 

[infection]

Right to Try is not just applied to specific medications, it's become the subject of legislatures without invoking any individual medication, and a notion that Trump has supported.

I haven’t heard anything about this. Can you guide me to some information? Right to Try is for specific medications under investigation that don’t have approval (aren’t on market). It’d make it hard to legislate in a blanket fashion without any specific medications.

 

[One Brow]

I haven’t heard anything about this. Can you guide me to some information? Right to Try is for specific medications under investigation that don’t have approval (aren’t on market). It’d make it hard to legislate in a blanket fashion without any specific medications.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-try_law

https://righttotry.org/about-right-to-try/

 

[infection]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-try_law

https://righttotry.org/about-right-to-try/

I think you misunderstood. Can you guide me to discussion of using Right to Try broadly and legislating it beyond what it currently is? That was the part I haven’t heard discussed recently (relative to COVID-19). I know what Right to Try is.

ETA: or are you saying that you disagree with RTT broadly and because Trump supports that, that he’s implying that “researching” ____ equates to tacit suggestion of people going ahead and using it?

 

[One Brow]

I think you misunderstood. Can you guide me to discussion of using Right to Try broadly and legislating it beyond what it currently is?

Before, you said "Right to Try is for specific medications under investigation", but the legislation is not written with specific medications in mind. It applies to any medication in any kind of clinical trial. So, just what do you mean by "broadly" here?

Also, since the point of my post was that, as '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.', do you think that focusing on a precise definition of Right to Try could be seen as something that "only further distracts from how stupid the thing he said was"?

 

[One Brow]

ETA: or are you saying that you disagree with RTT broadly and because Trump supports that, that he’s implying that “researching” ____ equates to tacit suggestion of people going ahead and using it?

I agree that Right to Try probably does more harm to patients than help, but so does, for example, smoking. I approve of it being legal in terms of civil liberties, but like smoking, it's not something I would promote.

Yes, when Trump sends the message that scientific studies are not needed to decide effective treatments, and then suggests trying something as an effective treatment, he's not suggesting it as a scientific study.