Wear a freaking mask already

I think the CDC has an agenda, probably several, and Public Health is not among them. The CDC is run by mere mortals, and most all of them are career bureaucrats. Career first, public health second.

Cynical as hell, but likely true.

 

He was clearly able to be heard

 

I hate the damn things... fogs up my sunnies

 

Ya know what really sucks?

Being intubated

 

yeah... sounds awful, you'd have to take your sunnies completely OFF

 

Yeah, bleep those soldiers in the Middle East who have to wear full PPE for numerous hours, in the name of American freedom, right? You have to be inconvenienced for 15 minutes at Walmart to help out. Totally unfair.

 

I don't like wearing a mask and I will damn well say so whether you like it or not.

This attitude of the left, that people need to lie or they are this.... or that (insert label) is bullshit

 

Are you seriously saying that just because the broadcast microphone was able to capture what he was saying, that Trump could hear him live? You clearly don't understand how sound works!

 

Yes

 

I don't like wearing pants but I sure as Hell put them on before going to Walmart. Damn prudes in the right wing...

 

"What the hell are you talking about? Are you objecting to the spelling "advisor"?" Over here in America, both "advisor" and "adviser" are acceptable spellings. It is true that "adviser" is the most used one. Whatever, I just hope your objection is not, again, semantics. I used it in the broad sense. Dr. Fauci is the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and in this capacity he advises the president, although he is not technically a White House adviser. Satisfied?

WTF? I have ABSOLUTELY no idea how you could POSSIBLY think that I may have been referring to the spelling! That's insane! Anyway, to recap, I referred to Fauci going on national TV to say that people didn't need to change anything - I asked you if Trump should have been saying something entirely different to Fauci. To which you replied: "If an advisor says something that isn't correct, the POTUS should have said, "well, no, I want to be more prudent than that, Dr. Fauci. Let's take some measures just in case" I actually read that as, I want to be more prudent than Dr. Fauci. Let's take some measures just in case!" So I thought that you were talking about a different adviser who Trump should have listened to over Fauci! Hence why I asked, "was there such an advisor?" So what you seem to mean is that Fauci's stance that people didn't need to change anything wasn't "correct", given that you said "if an advisor says something that isn't correct." Please explain how exactly Trump was supposed to know that Fauci wasn't "correct."

"It's on you to prove that someone else took upon these tasks, if you keep insisting that someone probably did."

Already done.

"Selective quoting is when you quote a part that seems to support your claim but you don't quote a part that does not support it. I wasn't talking about you quoting me. I was talking about you saying that eventually most of that money was secured, without quoting the parts of the article that say that still, many parts got underfunded. Got it? That's why I said, read it again."

You must be referring to this part of the article: "Most of that money was eventually secured, but funding for the future preparedness programmes was reduced." That doesn't say that ANY PPE was underfunded. Your original claim was: "it has surfaced that Obama TRIED to replenish the stockpile of PPE but the Tea Party congressmen STOPPED him." Do you stand by that claim? Seems to me that the Tea Party people didn't actually STOP Obama at all, but merely held things up.

"Sure. We've seen how much it improved things. [Insert sarcasm here]"

We have NO IDEA that if the team had been left in place it would have made ANY improvement at all! Remember what Tim Morrison, the former Senior Director for Counterproliferation and Biodefense on the National Security Council said: " the combined directorate was stronger because related expertise could be commingled”

"I'm aware that this is the current talking point to defend the administration of that claim. It doesn't ring true, though, given this:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/25/trump-coronavirus-national-security-council-149285

How is that for a reality check? LOL"

All you have done here is shift the goalposts. We were talking about the team which was scrapped, but you have very conveniently switched to 'PPE' because you realise that your claim about that "there was no relocation or else we'd have heard about it" has been well and truly debunked! Well I'm not falling for that. However, I'll play into your deflection - you seem to have missed this from the article which you cited:

"An NSC official confirmed the existence of the playbook but dismissed its value. “We are aware of the document, although it’s quite dated and has been superseded by strategic and operational biodefense policies published since,” the official said. “The plan we are executing now is a better fit, more detailed, and applies the relevant lessons learned from the playbook and the most recent Ebola epidemic in the [Democratic Republic of the Congo] to COVID-19.”

A health department spokesperson also said that the NSC playbook was not part of the current coronavirus strategy. “The HHS COVID-19 response was informed by more recent plans such as the foundation of the National Biodefense Strategy (201, Biological Incident Annex (2017),and panCAP (201 among other key plans provided by the CDC, White House Task Force, FEMA, and other key federal departments and agencies,” the spokesperson said." https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/25/trump-coronavirus-national-security-council-149285

"And what about this? If the team still existed, could this have been better heard?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/06/us/politics/navarro-warning-trump-coronavirus.html"

What, a warning from Trump's TRADE ADVISOR? Surely you can't be serious! I wasn't aware that trade had very much to do with epidemiology! I guess it does!

"Do you want another reality check? Remember Beth Cameron? She was the first one to direct that team. So, no longer having a job, she tried several times to warn Trump, but couldn't even get an audience with him."

That's probably because she became irrelevant after leaving the job.

"Read this, too:

https://www.wsls.com/news/politics/2020/03/14/trump-disbanded-nsc-pandemic-unit-that-experts-had-praised/"

Anything particular from this article? I've found something: “I wouldn't necessarily characterize it as a mistake (to eliminate the unit)." - Fauci.

"Oh really? What about this?

Ron Klain, who managed the government response to contain and mitigate the spread of Ebola in 2014, agreed.

"If I were back in my old job at the White House ... I'd be pushing to have us do 30 million tests — to test people in nursing homes, to test people with unexplained respiratory ailments, to test the people who regularly visit nursing homes, to test healthcare workers," Klain said recently at the event hosted by the Center for American Progress in Washington."

Don't you think that a lot of nursing home deaths could have been averted if this had been done???"

Mr. Klain says NOTHING about the preparedness group. Remember, you said, "when he dismantles the preparedness group, people die." Do you stand by that OUTRAGEOUS accusation?

"Well, after my counter-reality check, you should. Oh, you quoted the Washington Post, right? What about reading the op ed that Beth Cameron, the former director of that team, penned? Care to concede the point after this? Here, for your reading pleasure (reproduced by the source I'm linking to, but originally published by The Washington Post):

https://theeagle.com/opinion/columnists/i-ran-the-white-house-pandemic-office-president-trump-closed/article_8c319d59-a735-549a-9dc9-7435263df451.html"

Again, she became irrelevant after leaving the job. And I have already quoted someone who was ACTUALLY around at the time that the team was scrapped - Tim Morrison, the former Senior Director for Counterproliferation and Biodefense on the National Security Council.

 

Awesome! While walking around, you would have looked like THE STIG!

 

OK, it wasn't the spelling. I thought it was because you put it between quotation marks, something that people sometimes do, sarcastically. Anyway, yes, I think Fauci was wrong. I've criticized Fauci multiple times. What Trump could have done? Oh poor Trump, the stable genius, he couldn't have known anything because Fauci led him to error, right? Nice try. A president must listen to advisers but if it seems fishy he could have looked for a second opinion, could have tried to study the issue himself, instead of skipping briefings, refusing to read stuff, refusing to get educated, and playing gold non-stop.

False. You just proved that the administration came up with a lame excuse that doesn't hold water.

Exactly. Why didn't you quote the second line? See what selective quoting is??? What do you suppose is involved in preparedness? One of the things is building up a stock of PPE.

Lame excuse, already demonstrated to you. I'm tired of the frisking and the rigidity in never conceding a point.

Excuses, excuses. What better plan did they have? They were caught pants down, LOL.

When even a trade adviser sees it, and when even a trade adviser needs to bring it up to attention, could it be that the real experts were... missing because their team had been dismantled? LOL

Yeah, sure. Look at her current position.
Now it's probably downing in you that I'm right and I'm wrong, so now you shoot the messenger, Beth Cameron. Great strategy! Kudos!

First, like I said, I'm no fan of Fauci's. Second, he said that after Trump got really upset at him, probably threatened to fire him. Remember, he had said that deaths could have been avoided if preparedness had been better. Trump got really irritated, then Fauci came up with this on-the-fence statement.

Mr. Klain says NOTHING about the preparedness group. Remember, you said, "when he dismantles the preparedness group, people die." Do you stand by that OUTRAGEOUS accusation?
[/quote]
Yes, I do. Mr. Klain was a member of the team, dammit!

You're impossible. You just can't concede a point. All the stuff they said AFTERwards, on how great their new planning was, on how the team was unnecessary, is Monday morning quarterbacking, and excuses. The evidence shows that there was such a lack of direct expertise in the White House that the freaking Trade guy was the one who had to blow the whistle. Gee!

I'm not sure if I want to continue this. Tired of your frisking. But not for a second think that its because I'm running out of arguments. I'm not. It's just that you never accept anything and you keep repeating partisan excuses. At one point you alienate your interlocutor.

 

"https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3386

"All the docs” on the White House coronavirus task force had signed off on the changes, said Giroir, naming the task force coordinator Deborah Birx, the Food and Drug Administration chief Stephen Hahn, the infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci, and a new addition, Scott Atlas, a physician from the conservative Hoover Institute at Stanford University who has argued for a swifter reopening of the economy."

Who said the above?

"Brett Giroir, the assistant secretary of health responsible for testing, confirmed on 26 August that the impetus for the change had come from the White House."

How is that for a leak? That's a leak. No doubt about it. It's even a named leak, not even an anonymous one (the guy who leaked it stands behind it, as he is probably pissed off. Probably will get fired, though. Mark his name and keep following."

So you're saying that the leak is him saying that Atlas "has argued for a swifter reopening of the economy?"

"A pattern."

A pattern of what?

"Come on, the Trump Administration through his lackey Barr is now suing not one, not two, not three, but FOUR states to stop them from doing this. Plus, the Navajo tribe. Oh, you'll doubt me, right? I'll say, google it. You'll say, you haven't found anything, right? Then I'll come back and post the links for you. I won't post them in advance just because I want to see you go through your little routine of doubting me again, then ending up with egg on your face."

There's no egg on my face! Remember, you talked about the waiving of needing a reason to do absentee ballot. Are you saying that Trump is somehow preventing the waiving of needing a reason? If you're NOT saying this, then how is Trump against absentee ballots? When I asked you this previously, that's when you replied with the stuff about waiving needing a reason to do absentee ballot. And I cannot for the life of me see how that's in the LEAST bit relevant if you're not trying to argue that Trump is against absentee ballots.

"Repeatedly talking against mail-in voting, and suing 4 states + a large Indian tribe, trying to stop it. "

My understanding is that this is in order to prevent hundreds of millions of ballots being mailed out to every single address on the voter roll, regardless of if people have requested them. Is that not your understanding?

"Which by the way drew the ire of one of the Republican House Representatives who went to see Trump and asked him to stop his crusade against mail-in voting, because according to him, the seniors who traditionally vote Republican are the ones most fearful of showing up in person to vote on election day due to the virus, therefore Trump's boneheaded move might hurt congressional races."

Oh, so for a totally selfish reason based on helping Republicans? I'd be surprised if you're trying to use this guy as evidence that Trump is doing something wrong.

"What are the cases, far more than one, that you've heard of? I could google but I'll give you the pleasure of substantiating your claims, since I'm learning from you that instead of googling, the advisable stance is to challenge the other person, right? So, come on, what are the numerous cases of mail-in voting fraud you've learned of? Evidence, please?"

https://votingrights.news21.com/interactive/election-fraud-database/

You didn't ACTUALLY think that there's only been one single case of voter fraud in American history do you? Surely not!

"What part of "if he loses" you don't understand? OF COURSE if he wins (helped by the curtailment and disenfranchising of the opposition) he'll say it was all legit."

I didn't say if he wins. I said, if his alleged actions to "curtail and disenfranchise" are successful. As in, if whatever Trump is trying to do here is successful prior to the election and he has achieved everything which he set out to achieve. If he ends up losing, how could he claim fraud? He would have to admit that his efforts failed and the election was still rigged!

"By the way, that's EXACTLY what happened in 2016. He kept crying fraud in advance when he thought he would lose."

Are you sure that he wasn't just complaining that the media were against him? What "fraud" did he claim exactly?

 

I don't know why I'm still trying, after I said "over and out" but I guess since you still replied, I will too, out of courtesy, but let's put an end to this and agree to disagree, OK? Alright, so, let's see. Again your frisking while misunderstanding what is said or intentionally misinterpreting it. The "a physician from the conservative... blah blah... who has argued for... blah blah " is the journalist editorializing. It's not what Giroir said. Giroir named WHO was behind the push, and named Scott Atlas too. Then since Scott Atlas is not as well known to the public, the journalist editorialized to explain who he is. Gee! You wanted proof that Scott Atlas was behind it. I gave it to you in the words of freaking Giroir but you'll still won't concede the point. No wonder I'm fed up with you and about to place you on Ignore.

I won't dignify this with a response, if you can't see it, although it is so evident.

That is you again being disingenuous and trying to put words in my mouth. That's why you're going on Ignore, among other reasons. You don't debate honestly. You try "gotcha" strategies. You asked, is it absentee ballot or mail-in voting? I said, in practical terms it is the same thing as states have waived requirements for justification. You then turns this into some sort of minor point to try to disprove the obvious, that Trump *is* against any form of mail-in voting because he knows that more Democrats than Republicans have requested ballots.

No. My understanding is that he is trying to prevent losing the election, by any means necessary.

It shows that his own party knows what he is trying to do.

I concede this point. I didn't know that there's been roughly some 500 isolated cases of mail-in voter fraud since 2000. That's still a low average that wouldn't change any race.

Since when does Trump say anything logical or factual? That's the man who has lied 20,000 times.


"By the way, that's EXACTLY what happened in 2016. He kept crying fraud in advance when he thought he would lose."

Are you sure that he wasn't just complaining that the media were against him? What "fraud" did he claim exactly?[/QUOTE]
Yes, I am sure. He claimed that illegals would be voting.

Again, after I respond to this last batch of frisking posts, you'll be going on Ignore.

 

You really should qualify that. That's the man who has lied 20,000 times since becoming president.
His lifetime body of work must fall into the hundreds of thousands.

 

Welcome to the club of those that ignore Chris . Ok. I haven't put Chris on ignore but experience has told me that it is a waste of time "debating" with Chris what with his endless circle of inane questions

 

LOL, good point!

 

Well thank goodness for that (pant wearing).... now please point to the post where I said I don't wear a mask

 

As in, "YES", you don't understand how sound works? I agree!

 

I never put anyone on ignore. To do so allows them to spew bullshit without it being challenged. The "nonsense" needs to be refuted.

Will they ever admit they are wrong? Of course not but that they are needs to be pointed out

 

"Endless circle of inane questions" - otherwise known as, questions which are simply too challenging and scrutinising for you to even ATTEMPT to answer!

 

Yeah, "nonsense" such as saying that just because someone can be heard on a mic, that means that someone can hear them live!

 

Yeah, I've tried engaging him. Even on non controversial topics, he behaves like an interrogator trying to get you to implicate yourself. It doesn't mesh well with my discussion style, so I just don't engage anymore.

 

That is a very good point. I've been putting a lot of people on Ignore and it limits my capacity to challenge their BS but I guess I just need a break from the insanity and the disingenuous trolling.