Nah. He likes when we are distracted by superficial issues.
The official "let's impeach Trump" thread
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
Nah. He likes when we are distracted by superficial issues.
When you had mentioned Trump and Right to Try, I had misunderstood you in thinking that he must have somehow connected Right to Try to something currently going on with Covid-19, so when you spoke of legislation surrounding it, I had still been under the impression that you were speaking about current legislation surrounding Right to Try as it would (presumably) relate to Covid-19 (which wasn't something I had heard), and would require specifying something because there's nothing in currently in an official phase of trial and therefor if legislation were attempting to apply to that, it would require specifying something because it would require certain treatments to official be under investigation. But I now understand what you're saying.
I don't think that's a fair assessment, though. Supporting the principles behind Right to Try =/= blanketly believing in ''bypass[ing] scientific studies entirely." Also, the type of person who's going to parse through all that nuance of Right to Try legislation to derive meaning from Trump's words has enough wherewithal to not be the same person who injects disinfectant or drinks bleach. Right to Try encompasses very specific scenarios. You can't generalize anyone's opinion regarding Right to Try with relation to anything else. As I've mentioned multiple times, clinical scenarios are all different, and there are many variables that change the calculus in terms of what becomes acceptable for any given situation. FDA regulation is intended to provide a layer of safety. That's really important for a lot of things. Important for trials of treatments for gastric reflux, or hyperlipidemia, or restless leg syndrome. When someone is terminally ill, it changes the risk and benefit equation, thus enters Right to Try. But supporting Right to Try doesn't mean you would also bypass the typical standards for GERD medications just because you're allowing someone with end-stage ALS to receive an experimental treatment.
I found your entire post to be completely reasonable and sensible, except for this point. While I agree that the people who carefully examined Right to Try will not be those who drink bleach, a lot of the surrounding media about right to try was about bypassing scientific standards to allow people to get cures. To many people, that's exactly what Right to Try was.
In this case, you even had the usual quacks hawking their bleach concoctions using what the President said as support. There is a connection for many people, even if not for us.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
More than just a few people on both networks did. I wasn't taking notes on the names because I didn't know there would be a pop quiz.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Because of all your posts I decided to dig up the transcript of the CNN broadcast I listened to. It was in the 4-5 PM hour last Friday. The show was The Situation Room. Here is the transcript: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/2004/24/sitroom.02.html
I can also tell you that in the same hour there were very similar comments on MSNBC.
The portion of the conversation I listened to involved Wolfe Blitzer, Jim Acosta, Sanjay Gupta and there were possibly more. To me, even re-reading their statements now, I think it is very reasonable for a listener to believe that the president advised Americans to inject themselves with household cleaners. They imply that repeatedly. As I said before, I switched to Fox and they weren't talking about it. I switched to MSNBC and they were saying much the same thing as CNN. As a result of the news stories I heard I believed that the president must have actually said these things (though I still wanted to hear his actual words to verify). When I did later hear the president's words I thought he should definitely not be musing about such ideas in public, and I also thought that he definitely did not say what the reporters on CNN and MSNBC claimed that he did.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
It would be nearly impossible for me to find any video clip of any kind on CNN or MSNBC where they weren't discussing the president in a ridiculing way. If using a ridiculing tone relieves the reporter of being required to tell the truth then MSNBC and CNN are using the strategy brilliantly.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/2004/24/sitroom.02.html
Thank you.
The transcript is full of "may" and "potentially". I didn't read one statement that said the President instructed Americans to inject. Perhaps you could quote it? Failing that, perhaps you could consider that you are slanting this news story in the same fashion you claim they are slanting what Trump said?
so CNN didn’t in fact say this.
I’m not really interested in what you believe, just in what they factually said.
I’m their defense it is hard to take a rodeo clown seriously.
Rodeo clowns put themselves in danger on a regular basis, IIUC. Much respect to them.
It actually takes training and dedication to be a rodeo clown. Any rodeo clown as incompetent and disinterested in their duties as our President would not last long.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
They did say it. Did you read the transcript or not?