We gotta talk about Uncle Joe

[Kasandra]

You're going back to an interview between Wallace and Scalise from November about the impeachment?  In which Wallace repeatedly interrupted factual statements to interject with hypotheticals that didn't turn out to be true to try and get Scalise to commit to agreeing to impeach in advance?

I say, he's right about how Wallace was acting on that occasion.

You're leading with your conclusion, not arguing from facts revealed during the investigation.  It's not hypothetical to raise issues that were based on Congressional testimony.  If anyone was twisting facts to make claims not in evidence, it was Scalise.  He kept falling back on the "it didn't happen" defense, that even if Trump tried to extort Zelensky he never completed the act.  Try that in court if you ever are accused of that crime.

He did answer the question, repeated and multiple times.  of course you missed that cause you got to caught up in a reporting trying to scare people and getting called out on it.

He's not "entitled" to attack a reporter for continuing to dig for answers if he's unsatisfied and claim that the reporter was out of line to pursue the questioning.  "Asked and answered" is not a good defense from the President when he's being asked to show some empathy, especially when it's topped off with personal insults against the reporter.  The reporter may have had an "agenda" given how many promises of false hope Trump had been dishing out from his initial comments about the virus, since they all turned out to be worthless.  That's the reporter's right, since he is speaking for many millions of Americans who feel strongly that that's what Trump had been doing and want the same answers.  Trump may have "answered" questions, but his answers weren't good enough. 

We can have a long (and boring) back and forth on why Trump is the wrong person to "guide" the nation during this crisis.

[Seriati]

You're going back to an interview between Wallace and Scalise from November about the impeachment?  In which Wallace repeatedly interrupted factual statements to interject with hypotheticals that didn't turn out to be true to try and get Scalise to commit to agreeing to impeach in advance?

I say, he's right about how Wallace was acting on that occasion.

You're leading with your conclusion, not arguing from facts revealed during the investigation.  It's not hypothetical to raise issues that were based on Congressional testimony.

That's a lie.  Wallace expressly speculated about "what if's" from future testimony.  Scalise repeatedly said he wasn't going to answer speculation and hypo's and referred back to what was in evidence.  Did you even read the interview before you criticized Trump for it?

I have zero tolerance for anyone still playing on the impeachment lies as if they were true. 

He did answer the question, repeated and multiple times.  of course you missed that cause you got to caught up in a reporting trying to scare people and getting called out on it.

He's not "entitled" to attack a reporter for continuing to dig for answers if he's unsatisfied and claim that the reporter was out of line to pursue the questioning.

That's just a lie.  When a reporter is trying to create the story he's an advocate not a reporter.  The question was answered, and the reporter knew the answer, he didn't like the answer so he was trying to change the story.  Trump was absolutely right to call out an activist pretending to be a reporter.

"Asked and answered" is not a good defense from the President when he's being asked to show some empathy, especially when it's topped off with personal insults against the reporter.

And?  Trump didn't say asked and answered.  He literally answered the question multiple times.

Did you read the transcript?  If you don't say yes, don't respond again.

The reporter may have had an "agenda" given how many promises of false hope Trump had been dishing out from his initial comments about the virus, since they all turned out to be worthless.  That's the reporter's right, since he is speaking for many millions of Americans who feel strongly that that's what Trump had been doing and want the same answers.  Trump may have "answered" questions, but his answers weren't good enough.

The reporter is trying to sell a lie, and if you uncritically back him you're aiding the cause of a liar. 

This has ZERO to do with helping the country.  It has ZERO to do with the Corornavirus response.  It has everything to do with Joe Biden being sidelined and revealed as incompetent, the progressives looking mean spirited and petty with their wish list, and Trump's approval going up as these press conferences make him look decisive, effective and Presidential.

That's 100% why the media is trying to reframe everything as a disaster, why they are trying to panic people, and why they even openly call for the networks to stop covering the press conferences, notwithstanding that they are the most effective communication on the ongoing response.

It's 100% politics and 0% about digging for answers or helping the country.

We can have a long (and boring) back and forth on why Trump is the wrong person to "guide" the nation during this crisis.

Lol.  No we can't. 

[Kasandra]

That's a lie.  Wallace expressly speculated about "what if's" from future testimony.  Scalise repeatedly said he wasn't going to answer speculation and hypo's and referred back to what was in evidence.  Did you even read the interview before you criticized Trump for it?

I watched it.  Scalise was dissembling the whole time, referring to every reference Wallace made to testimony as speculation or hypothetical conjecture.  Wallace kept pressing to get him to admit that anything at all Trump did was bad and he stonewalled all the way.  It was the closest to an aggressive investigative interrogation as you'll ever see on FOX.  Kudos to Wallace.

That's just a lie.  When a reporter is trying to create the story he's an advocate not a reporter.  The question was answered, and the reporter knew the answer, he didn't like the answer so he was trying to change the story.  Trump was absolutely right to call out an activist pretending to be a reporter.

You're getting touchy and even sounding a little like Trump.  You don't like it, so you close your ears and call it a lie.  Reporters are supposed to pursue topics until they get answers that gibe with the truth.  Trump has lied in virtually every public statement he has made about the virus.  People know that, and the reporter was doggedly trying to get him to give an honest answer.  Which for Trump amounts to trying to destroy the person asking the question, which he has done so many times that it's a wonder anybody ever takes what he says at face value.  Let me know if you want to defend any of his top 10 or more false (lies?) statements about the virus; he'd be proud of what you're doing so far.

Did you read the transcript?  If you don't say yes, don't respond again.

Yes.  The reporter was just doing his job, and Trump was giving half-assed answers.  Imagine that you were asking Trump questions and wanted to know what he really thought. How easily would you give up? Pretty easy, I guess.

You keep using the word "lie" in your answer, as if you're swatting a pesky fly.

We can have a long (and boring) back and forth on why Trump is the wrong person to "guide" the nation during this crisis.

Lol.  No we can't.

Whew!  I was worried there for a second .

[Seriati]

I watched it.  Scalise was dissembling the whole time, referring to every reference Wallace made to testimony as speculation or hypothetical conjecture.  Wallace kept pressing to get him to admit that anything at all Trump did was bad and he stonewalled all the way.  It was the closest to an aggressive investigative interrogation as you'll ever see on FOX.  Kudos to Wallace.

There's no way to square what you said with what happened.  Wallace repeatedly asked "what if" questions about testimony that comes up.  Scalise repeatedly stated Trump's defense - that there was no quid pro quo and no improper pressure, cited to the actual statements from the Ukrainian Government and Trump.

Trump was right in his criticism of Wallace.  That said, I have no problem with Wallace asking those questions, he certainly could ask for speculation and responses on hypos.  Scalise was smart to say he wouldn't speculate and to keep referring to the actual evidence.  It's a flat lie to pretend though that Wallace's speculations - and they were literally what if questions about future testimoney - were somehow the reality and Scalise holding to the actual evidence the falsity.

You're getting touchy and even sounding a little like Trump.  You don't like it, so you close your ears and call it a lie.

It was a lie.  His questions were propaganda designed to undermine confidence.  He literally undermined deliberately Trumps definitively hopeful message then asked what Trump was doing to inspire hope.  Its a words game, and it's deliberately manipulative.

Reporters are supposed to pursue topics until they get answers that gibe with the truth.

I absolutely agree.  These "reporters" instead pursue narratives because they don't like the true answers.  Ergo they are not reporters - at least not in that moment.

Trump has lied in virtually every public statement he has made about the virus.

Nonsense.  Trump hasn't lied to you at all.  The media is lying to you, they are deliberately twisting everything they can, to try and turn anything with a shade of grey into a full blown problem - even where the same thing was said correctly 20 times in the press conference, and there isn't a seconds worth of confusion in any of their minds. 

When smart reporters understand what was said and what was meant and they choose to instead write a story that sells a false version of what was conveyed THEY ARE THE PROBLEM.

People know that, and the reporter was doggedly trying to get him to give an honest answer.

Lie.  He had an honest answer.  He was doggedly trying to establish his own narrative - a false narrative.

Let me know if you want to defend any of his top 10 or more false (lies?) statements about the virus; he'd be proud of what you're doing so far.

Give me the top 10 false statements - quote and context.

Did you read the transcript?  If you don't say yes, don't respond again.

Yes.  The reporter was just doing his job, and Trump was giving half-assed answers.  Imagine that you were asking Trump questions and wanted to know what he really thought. How easily would you give up? Pretty easy, I guess.

The questions he asked were all answered completely in the transcript, with no difficulty discerning what Trump really thought.  Does that mean that you really read it and have no reading comprehension, or that you just said you read it?

You keep using the word "lie" in your answer, as if you're swatting a pesky fly.

I keep using the word lie, because that's what's going on.  Lies and propaganda for partisan goals.  Lie, lie, lie, lie.  You could stop repeating lies if you don't like it.

[wmLambert]

I'm looking forward to that list of ten lies. It's hard to debunk what is never stated.

[Kasandra]

OK, try a few of these. If it's not 10 and you think you've debunked some, I can easily get more.

1.Jan 22: "We have it totally under control."

2. Feb 2: "We pretty much shut it down coming from China.  It's going to be fine."

3. Feb 24: "The coronavirus is very much under control in the USA.  Stock market starting to look good to me!"

4. Feb 25: "I think that's a problem that's going to go away. They know very much.  In fact, we're very close to a vaccine."

5. Feb 26: "The 15 cases within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero."

So there are 5.  Give it your best shot.  Try to do it without using the words "Obama" or "Pelosi".

[TheDrake]

Terrible predictions aren't exactly lies, and they can't even really be said to be untruthful. I tend to think Trump believed most of those statements. The most problematic is "we're very close to a vaccine" which was clearly incorrect, but also could have been made out of ignorance as an untrue statement.

[Kasandra]

You think statements in the present tense that are demonstrably false are just optimistic predictions?  He can believe what he wants, but it's a stretch to claim there's any truth in any of those statements.

[TheDeamon]

Terrible predictions aren't exactly lies, and they can't even really be said to be untruthful. I tend to think Trump believed most of those statements. The most problematic is "we're very close to a vaccine" which was clearly incorrect, but also could have been made out of ignorance as an untrue statement.

"We're very close to a vaccine" isn't even necessarily a lie. The problem there is regulatory.

We probably already have a vaccine, we just don't know which ones are effective, and what their side-effects may be, if any. Many of those vaccine candidates are in field trials already. The fly in the ointment is that even though the vaccine probably already exists, the general public is likely to be waiting another 16 to 18 months before they'll be able to get it, at which point it'll be moot for many.

[TheDeamon]

OK, try a few of these. If it's not 10 and you think you've debunked some, I can easily get more.

1.Jan 22: "We have it totally under control."

2. Feb 2: "We pretty much shut it down coming from China.  It's going to be fine."

Based on how prior containment worked, they had every reason to be saying this at the time. They were even correct about the "coming from China" part. What they, and others, didn't account for was the sheer number of people who circumvented that by way of "third country travel" where since they couldn't get to ___ from China, they instead went to another country which still allowed travel from China, and then traveled to __ from that other country.

To my knowledge, this is the first outbreak situation where it happened in sufficient numbers to become a genuine problem. Part of that problem will need to be addressed by better tracking of recent international travel on the airline side--IE they start blacklisting anyone who recently debarked a flight from a quarantined country. But that has its own Hazard when John Smith decided to bug out from the Contagion zone by way of Country B, which John Thomas Smith was in Country B and trying to get home from Country B, but ticketed himself as John Smith.

Sure, we could make it a question immigration asks as the time of debarkation as well, but at that point, you're then potentially needing to track down every single person that has spent the last 6+ hours on a plane with the guy so you can place them in quarantine too. The other option, of course, is you simply ban all travel from those "third countries" but then you'd need to ban every "fourth country" that didn't ban the third one, and so on and so forth.

3. Feb 24: "The coronavirus is very much under control in the USA.  Stock market starting to look good to me!"

4. Feb 25: "I think that's a problem that's going to go away. They know very much.  In fact, we're very close to a vaccine."

Already addressed the vaccine aspect, and so much has happened in the past month it's hard to recall what the exact situation was at that point. But fuzzy memory says there still was reason to be cautiously optimistic that we had stopped it on our doorstep.

5. Feb 26: "The 15 cases within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero."

Again, SARS(IIRC) and Ebola both had cases make it to the United States before it was stopped, so early into the process, seeing even a couple dozen cases make into the country isn't necessarily cause for alarm, and would tend to cause the President's "other roles" to lead him to try to calm down fears and keep things under control by talking up the likelihood of success, rather than all the ways containment efforts could fail.

[NobleHunter]

None of this overly optimistic thinking lines up with what the experts were saying at the time. Immediately after Trump made those statements people knew he was talking out of his ass. It's charitable to construe these comments as the result of confidence in the US's containment strategy but that in itself is a fairly harsh condemnation of the President.

[TheDeamon]

None of this overly optimistic thinking lines up with what the experts were saying at the time. Immediately after Trump made those statements people knew he was talking out of his ass. It's charitable to construe these comments as the result of confidence in the US's containment strategy but that in itself is a fairly harsh condemnation of the President.

And I'd lay odds that if we went back to Bush43 and SARS, you'd see him pushing optimism on the containment strategy even as the health officials were being more cautious. Containment worked, so they left him alone on that.

You'll probably also see Obama pushing optimism, which his adoring press will bill as "guarded optimism" when he had his brushes with Swine Flu and Ebola, even as the health officials were being more cautious and (with H1N1) complaining about "inadequate response efforts." Containment didn't work with H1N1, but it had a vaccine deep into the pipeline by then, so the press just brushed off any criticism of the great Obama.

[DonaldD]

So it's OK that Trump did/said this because... it's possible, but you don't know for sure, that Bush and Obama may have done something similar, but not exactly the same, maybe.

[TheDeamon]

So it's OK that Trump did/said this because... it's possible, but you don't know for sure, that Bush and Obama may have done something similar, but not exactly the same, maybe.

He could have done better, but that's a critique valid for everyone, but especially valid for Trump and his ongoing trash-fire.

He's pushing a boundary limit, but he is performing within lines I'd concede as "acceptable" or even expected of a public elected official in his position in such a circumstance. For now, so long as he sticks to bloviating and letting his experts actually direct things "on the ground" I'm not really seeing a major problem. If he starts trying to implement things against their advice, that's another matter. He hasn't crossed that line, and remains simply the Bloviator and Chief on this matter.

[DonaldD]

More than anybody else in the world, the US president's words are actions.

[TheDrake]

Instead of guessing about obama, why don't we check that out?

Timeline

4/17: 2 detected US infections existed
4/21: CDC officially reports, vaccine research begun
4/23: 2 more in TX
4/24: genome
4/28: new test developed

Obama gave this presser on 4/30, 13 days after first detection.

He never mentions a vaccine, let alone saying it was close. He requested 1.5B in emergency funding. He recommends schools should close if there are confirmed or suspected cases. He tells people to take preventative measures. He recommends social distancing

The key now I think is to make sure that we are maintaining great vigilance, that everybody responds appropriately when cases do come up.  And individual families start taking very sensible precautions that can make a huge difference.  So wash your hands when you shake hands.  Cover your mouth when you cough.  I know it sounds trivial, but it makes a huge difference.  If you are sick, stay home.  If your child is sick, keep them out of school.  If you are feeling certain flu symptoms, don't get on an airplane.  Don't get on any system of public transportation where you're confined and you could potentially spread the virus.

He already admits containment is over.

But the most important thing right now that public health officials have indicated is that we treat this the same way that we would treat other flu outbreaks, just understanding that because this is a new strain we don't yet know how it will respond.

He reflects uncertainty and doesn't try to compare it to existing flu.

So those are the steps that I think we need to take right now.  But understand that because this is a new strain, we have to be cautious.  If this was a strain that we were familiar with, then we might have to -- then I think we wouldn't see the kind of alert levels that we're seeing, for example, with the World Health Organization.

Reiterates caution and respects global health organizations.

full transcript

No mention here of containment.

I've consulted with our public health officials extensively on a day-to-day basis, in some cases, an hour-to-hour basis.  At this point they have not recommended a border closing.  From their perspective it would be akin to closing the barn door after the horses are out, because we already have cases here in the United States.

He gets a question he doesn't like, about hypotheticals, on the topic of Pakistan. Critics of the press today say hypotheticals are bad right, and that its just a trick of the liberal media to make Trump and Republicans look bad. So why did they deploy that against Obama?

Q    But in a worst-case scenario --
THE PRESIDENT:  I'm not going to engage --
Q    -- military, U.S. military could secure this nuclear --
THE PRESIDENT:  I'm not going to engage in hypotheticals of that sort.  I feel confident that that nuclear arsenal will remain out of militant hands.  Okay?

[wmLambert]

...1.Jan 22: "We have it totally under control."
2. Feb 2: "We pretty much shut it down coming from China.  It's going to be fine."\
3. Feb 24: "The coronavirus is very much under control in the USA.  Stock market starting to look good to me!"
4. Feb 25: "I think that's a problem that's going to go away. They know very much.  In fact, we're very close to a vaccine."
5. Feb 26: "The 15 cases within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero."

At the time he was accurate, and he was repeating what his medical advisers had been telling him. Trump has, his entire life, gone to the best experts in any given field to get the best input for the projects he was working on. When Rockefeller was running for office, he was asked how he was so effective, and he answered, "I surround myself with my betters." Trump does that also.

Have you ever noticed that Trump plays off his experts to get the best from them? No one single expert is given unquestioned authroty in his field.

As the situation changed, the medical opinions changed also. Do not lay that on Trump. His job was to relay the medical recommendations of the experts, which he did - but also to provide positive encouragement.

According to your disparaging viewpoint, he should have ignored the best medical minds and ran around like Chicken Little? Dr. Fauci has supported Trump throughout, and even fought against the media saying that he had disagreed with Trump and argued with him. He said that was bogus. You argue with Trump - you argue with Fauci. Do you really want to go there?

[Kasandra]

At the time he was accurate, and he was repeating what his medical advisers had been telling him. Trump has, his entire life, gone to the best experts in any given field to get the best input for the projects he was working on. When Rockefeller was running for office, he was asked how he was so effective, and he answered, "I surround myself with my betters." Trump does that also.

Nearly every word in that response is so absurd that there is nowhere to start.  No point in raising other lies he's told and misstatements made out of sheer ignorance to a worshipper.

[Seriati]

Okay, Kasandra, my challenge to you was:  "Give me the top 10 false statements - quote and context."

Did you do that?  Nope, no context on any of the statements - and why didn't you include context?  The entire discussion above is literally about how in context the statements make sense and their meaning is clear, and yet the media chooses to strip the context to misrepresent that meaning to fit their narrative.  That's exactly what you did when you stripped context.  Did you not know the context, or was it a deliberate choice?

I also asked for your top ten, and from your casual compilation and willingness to grab more, what I suspect I got instead was a pull from someone else's work product.  Again, you chose not to make a case but to pretend that citing to the work of others out of context is a case.

So let's look at what in fact you did bring us.  First you get an F for research and failure to follow directions since you provided no context or analysis.

OK, try a few of these. If it's not 10 and you think you've debunked some, I can easily get more.

1.Jan 22: "We have it totally under control."

Yes, on Jan 22, literally ONE DAY after the FIRST confirmed case on US soil.  We did in fact believe we had it under control at that point, we were tracking infected and exposed people and the CDC still believed that mapping and self quarantine would be sufficient to contain the spread.  This is also 2 days after Fauci announced work on a vaccine had begun.

For further context, on Jan 23rd the very next day, the WHO announced that the Wuhan virus does NOT yet constitute a public health emergency of international concern.

2. Feb 2: "We pretty much shut it down coming from China.  It's going to be fine."

On Jan 31st, Trump announced the shut down of travel from China.  Biden and the media talking heads jumped up and called this racist and reactionary.  Biden going so far as to say that travel bans are the wrong response and unneeded and that he never used them to stop H1N1 (which he didn't stop) or Ebola (which has a completely different trajectory expectation).  Biden and the media keep doubling down on this for weeks, even after most world governments use Trump's approach and institute major international and even intra-national travel restrictions.  Eventually, the media just stops saying it - they NEVER admit they were wrong or that they and Biden were "fighting the last war" while Trump was right (just for context they were still raising these questions at the  press conference from which you pulled your final quote below almost a fully month later).

In any event, the statement is 3 days after the travel ban, almost certainly in response to questions from the media about the "racist travel ban." It isn't a lie and provides a direct explanation for why he put in place a travel ban.  Pull the actual context if you want to make the case.

3. Feb 24: "The coronavirus is very much under control in the USA.  Stock market starting to look good to me!"

On Feb 24, the CDC still thinks they can track and map cases in the US and stop the spread.  That's just a fact as of that date.  The US confirmed a total of 53 cases as of Feb. 24, meanwhile the US market plunge started as of Feb 22 a day after the US announced 20 cases (more than doubling the previous total to 35 total cases).

So literally, on that day the coronavirus was still believed by the CDC to be under control and capable of being contained by mapping the cases and their contacts (they were wrong), and the market fundamentals were still strong with panic being the primary downward driver.  So yes, it still looked good.

4. Feb 25: "I think that's a problem that's going to go away. They know very much.  In fact, we're very close to a vaccine."

What's the problem that's "going to go away"?  Context remember?

They may in fact be close to a vaccine.  You can do your own research, but 2 days ago the Guardian reported 35 companies working on a vaccine, with 4 already testing viable candidates in animals and one with human trials about to start.  That's 30 days after "we're very close to a vaccine" which makes that literally true.  That means less that 60 days from when Rauci announced they had begun work on a vaccine there is a product where human testing is imminent.

Did Trump give more context at that time about how long after it would take to get to market?  We don't know, because, wait for it...   you chose to pull a quote out of context so you could pretend it was a lie rather than part of a more complete explanation.

5. Feb 26: "The 15 cases within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero."

So that's a quote that only makes sense in context.  You seem to think it refers to stopping new cases - which is exactly why it's been pulled out of context.

However, that  is literally pulled out of context from the Feb 26 press briefing.  It refers, as explained repeatedly in that briefing to the condition of the 15 diagnosed cases in the US (as of Feb 26, note the inconsistency with the above tallies - Azar confirmed this number real time, but it excluded a number of repatriated people, which I expect were being discussed and included in the prior numbers) and their health status - recovering.  15 sick people expected to recover.  What a lie.

So why do you include it here - out of context - and seem to think its a lie?  The Meme and ile started 2 days later when the MSM (lead by Rachel Maddow I believe) pulled just that phrase out of context to try and build a meme that it referred to new cases, not the existing cases recovering.  It's literally a lie the way you are referring to it.

Even worse, there were multiple questions and answers on those 15 cases and what it meant, on transmission and on recovery, yet that quote was pulled out of the President's answer to a question about  whether American's needed to cancel their travel plans for the summer, rather than any of the multiple questions that were relevant to the transmission rates or the 15 recovering cases.  So in a callback to 15 cases explained repeatedly in an answer that was effectively talking about whether the country and/or the world might be in recovery by summer and where the President literally said people have to be flexible, because he's hopeful but we may not get there, and people may have to consider local travel rather than international, where the recovery rate by the only cases we treated is pertinent context he made that truthful and accurate statement.

So there are 5.  Give it your best shot.  Try to do it without using the words "Obama" or "Pelosi".

So, literally even on substance an F.  You didn't find a lie, you exposed that you will bend yourself into a pretzel and/or uncritically accept feeds from talking heads.  Correct me if I'm wrong, weren't you an academic before you retired?  Apply some critical reasoning please.

[Seriati]

You think statements in the present tense that are demonstrably false are just optimistic predictions?  He can believe what he wants, but it's a stretch to claim there's any truth in any of those statements.

So demonstrate them false.  100% clear to me that you didn't find those yourself and have no idea what they actually referred to, and whether they were true or false.  But prove me wrong, defend your claims and "demonstrate them false".

Oh we both know you won't, far easier to just grab five more out of context quotes and claim they are lies.

[Seriati]

None of this overly optimistic thinking lines up with what the experts were saying at the time. Immediately after Trump made those statements people knew he was talking out of his ass. It's charitable to construe these comments as the result of confidence in the US's containment strategy but that in itself is a fairly harsh condemnation of the President.

Is it?  Then you're free to take up my challenge to Kasandra and demonstrate it yourself.

[NobleHunter]

You've already decided bull*censored* statements are totally reasonable "in context." I'm pretty sure there's nothing I can do to change that.

[DonaldD]

So literally, on that day the coronavirus was still believed by the CDC to be under control and capable of being contained by mapping the cases and their contacts (they were wrong), and the market fundamentals were still strong with panic being the primary downward driver.  So yes, it still looked good.

Misrepresent much?

Pandemic watch

• Fauci - “we're really on the brink" of a pandemic
• Dr. W Schaffner, adviser to the CDC: “We’re on the knife’s edge”
• WHO: "We are in the phase of preparedness for a potential pandemic.”
• CDC confirms person-to-person transmission in Illinois and California
• Alabama mayor: "We're simply not prepared" to help patients with coronavirus
• WHO:Other countries should "jump on this" to prevent coronavirus spread

So you got Fauci warning that the world is on the brink of dealing with a pandemic, there was community spread in the USA...

Stock markets

• Dow drops 1000 basis points
• All gains for 2020 wiped out - 2020 is now in negative territory for the DOW.  S&P 500 and Nasdaq still slightly positive for the year.
• Ryan Detrick, LPL Financial: “The [International Monetary Fund] already lowered China’s growth this year, but should the virus continue to spread to other parts of the world, we could see quickly decreasing earnings and growth outlooks."

So, all gains for the year had been lost, yet "the market fundamentals were still strong"; China's growth projection was already lowered, and there is a risk of decreased earnings and decreasing growth worldwide, yet "panic" was "the primary downward driver." 

That's wmLambert level analysis, that is.

[Kasandra]

Did you do that?  Nope, no context on any of the statements - and why didn't you include context?

What context do you need?  He was either sitting in the WH with his cabinet, standing on the WH lawn making a statement, in a broadcast interview.  Every one of them is a public statement that was recorded.

So demonstrate them false.  100% clear to me that you didn't find those yourself and have no idea what they actually referred to, and whether they were true or false.  But prove me wrong, defend your claims and "demonstrate them false".

I confess that I wasn't present for any of them (unless "present" now means virtually present by electronic means), but how hard is it to find Trump's own public statements?  Are you denying he said every one of those things?  If you want to claim he didn't, you're in a whole different puddle of *censored*.  It's easy to "demonstrate them false" simply by noting that future events contradicted every one of them.

I'm not going to go chasing you around the table, since you never yield to rebuttals.  But I'll take just one that is indicative of your deflection:

1.Jan 22: "We have it totally under control."

Yes, on Jan 22, literally ONE DAY after the FIRST confirmed case on US soil.

Don't forget that on March 18 he said he believed all along that it was going to be a pandemic.  In fact, before that remark in January he was warned a number of times by the CIA and other US Intel agencies that it had the potential to become one.  Only a moron or a liar would insist only one day after the first case reached our shores that he had the situation completely under control. If I had to choose, I would pick that he is both a moron and a liar.  He obviously didn't have it totally under control, as has become blitheringly obvious.  So the question is, how do we know he knew it wasn't true?  Nope, tell me why what he said *was* true.

[Seriati]

Instead of guessing about obama, why don't we check that out?

Timeline

4/17: 2 detected US infections existed
4/21: CDC officially reports, vaccine research begun
4/23: 2 more in TX
4/24: genome
4/28: new test developed

Obama gave this presser on 4/30, 13 days after first detection.

What's interesting about the CDC link to me is that they are more than a bit self serving.  The CDC link starts the timeline more than a month after H1N1 was active (though in small numbers) both in Mexico and in the US, with the date they tested a sample.  That begs the question of whether they should have been more active sooner.  Fair enough, it's 100% clear that the country has an extensive tracking system for the seasonal flu and a repeated process for how to determine if new flu strains appear, and a "fast track" system for how to develop vaccinces for the flu (which are well understood and produced every year).  What that didn't show to me, is any special measures.

The Obama presser is a cut and paste from his actual press conference (credit to you for putting the full link down below). It's also pretty clear that his 100 days press conference was hardly focused at all on the H1N1 virus, one and only one follow up question.

But note, you seem to think that there was evidence of the press treating Obama the same way they treated Trump in there?  Read it again, multiple fawning questions, repeated questions that state some version of "the Republican party is a mess" would you like to explain in detail why that is?  Nothing that challenged him or questioned him even remotely.  And no discussion about how in this presser, passed along as somehow equivalent, it wasn't close to the focus of the presser?
 
I mean this press conference is the one that included this famous "hard ball":  "Thank you, Mr. President.  During these first 100 days, what has surprised you the most about this office, enchanted you the most about serving this in office, humbled you the most and troubled you the most?"

He never mentions a vaccine, let alone saying it was close. He requested 1.5B in emergency funding. He recommends schools should close if there are confirmed or suspected cases. He tells people to take preventative measures. He recommends social distancing

It's interesting that you flagged his $1.5 billion request, because I had to check it twice.  Why?  Because he said it was a $1.5 million request to deal with a "worse case scenario," when he answered the question and $1.5 billion in his opening remarks.  Did that lead to nasty articles about his lies?  We all know it didn't.

As to why he didn't mention the "vaccine"?  Flu vaccine production is an annual phenomenum with a seasonal cycle, the only thing to mention about a vaccine would be if it was off schedule (H1N1 vaccine ultimately was not ready at the start of flu season, but shortly thereafter).  The risk with flu vaccines is producing them from the wrong strains not that they won't be effective (generally) against the strains covered.   COVID-19 is a novel virus - not a flu - for which vaccine production and development was not a given.

You may also note that by the time of his response he was already saying it was too late to contain this flu virus, which may have been, but was not clearly the case with COVID-19.  Again, this goes directly to fighting the last war on downplaying travel bans.

And what was uncle Joe saying?  He was apparently spreading panic and telling people not to travel on public transit.  Lol, how the times have changed.  https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7470281&page=1

But the most important thing right now that public health officials have indicated is that we treat this the same way that we would treat other flu outbreaks, just understanding that because this is a new strain we don't yet know how it will respond.

He reflects uncertainty and doesn't try to compare it to existing flu.

He literally says that we should treat this the same way we would treat other flu outbreaks (ie compares it to the existing flu) in the passage you quoted.

I don't think there's anything unusual about the Obama response to a flu strain at this point (other than maybe the border). 

The real scale wasn't yet known, as while there were more than expected fatalities from the flu, there were only about 150 "confirmed" cases worldwide (most in the US).  The backdrop on this question was that we had recorded the first death outside of Mexico the day before.  WHO had raised it's alert to "stage 5" even though there were only 150 reported cases, because, I'm assuming that many countries just had no tests but were reporting heavier than usual deaths.  Mexico was already taking extreme measures, including shutdowns in large parts of the country to contain the spread, which is why the border questions were being asked, since we share that border and our cases were heavily focused in CA and TX at the time.

He gets a question he doesn't like, about hypotheticals, on the topic of Pakistan. Critics of the press today say hypotheticals are bad right, and that its just a trick of the liberal media to make Trump and Republicans look bad. So why did they deploy that against Obama?

He'd already answered a hypothetical on Pakistan, and the reporter basically undermined him - lightly - by reasking the what if question and he refused to answer.  That's literally the most mild version (by one SINGLE reporter) of what happens to Trump by multiple reporters, with multiple questions.  I'm happy that you can pick out similar fact patterns, even if they are milder versions of them. 

No one objective reads the press questions to Obama and to Trump and thinks the press treats them remotely in the same manner - and no that has nothing to do with Trump's style and everything to do with press corp politics.

[wmLambert]

...I would pick that he is both a moron and a liar.  He obviously didn't have it totally under control, as has become blitheringly obvious.  So the question is, how do we know he knew it wasn't true?  Nope, tell me why what he said *was* true.

Evidently, you are not only lacking in context as Seriati pointed, out, but in basic reading skills. Almost everything you just posted was "asked and answered." Do you spend most of your time searching for pejorative spins, instead of basic facts?

[ScottF]

No one objective reads the press questions to Obama and to Trump and thinks the press treats them remotely in the same manner - and no that has nothing to do with Trump's style and everything to do with press corp politics.

I agree it's primarily politics but his style is an accelerant and definitely has contributed to them doubling down on the animosity. That doesn't excuse how they treat him, but his style plays into it.

[Seriati]

You've already decided bull*censored* statements are totally reasonable "in context." I'm pretty sure there's nothing I can do to change that.

No, I've decided that uncharitably calling things that are perfectly understandable in the context professional reporters hear them lies because those reporters choose to report them out of context to maximize the potential for misunderstanding is BS.  Trump talks conversationally - which is not how many politicians speak - he rambles, he goes off script, he says things that are true but that require unstated conditions or axioms, he says things that follow logically from assumptions that you can tell he makes.

It is literally a CHOICE by the media to comb through his statements to find the 15th time he said the same thing but used words that can be read multiple ways to quote that 15th way and to strip the context to imply he said something else.

It's literally the choice to quote the Charlottesville comments such that it appears he says there are fine Nazi's and racists even though he expressly made clear that those people were not who he was talking about in the speach.

Given that we rely on the press to accurately summarize lengthy press conferences to convey meaning, I have zero tolerance for this practice of lying.  And it is lying.  It's knowing spreading a false interpretation of what was said.  It's a lie, and supporting it is supporting liars.

[Kasandra]

...I would pick that he is both a moron and a liar.  He obviously didn't have it totally under control, as has become blitheringly obvious.  So the question is, how do we know he knew it wasn't true?  Nope, tell me why what he said *was* true.

Evidently, you are not only lacking in context as Seriati pointed, out, but in basic reading skills. Almost everything you just posted was "asked and answered." Do you spend most of your time searching for pejorative spins, instead of basic facts?

This won't mean anything to you, since you obviously drink from the same KoolAid punchbowl as Seriati, but this is why his answers aren't believable:

No one objective reads the press questions to Obama and to Trump and thinks the press treats them remotely in the same manner - and no that has nothing to do with Trump's style and everything to do with press corp politics.

It has everything to do with Trump's style and untrustworthiness, and very little to do with press corps politics.  People on the right like you both only think the press and the courts are being fair when they bend over for you.  The "press" for the most part got fair and honest answers from Obama, yet he still said they treated him unfairly.  So did Bush. So did Clinton.

[TheDeamon]

No, I've decided that uncharitably calling things that are perfectly understandable in the context professional reporters hear them lies because those reporters choose to report them out of context to maximize the potential for misunderstanding is BS.  Trump talks conversationally - which is not how many politicians speak - he rambles, he goes off script, he says things that are true but that require unstated conditions or axioms, he says things that follow logically from assumptions that you can tell he makes.

It is literally a CHOICE by the media to comb through his statements to find the 15th time he said the same thing but used words that can be read multiple ways to quote that 15th way and to strip the context to imply he said something else.

I think the better way to put it is the press is using Police Interrogation tactics against Trump in an effort to get him to make a statement that they can twist to mean anything they want it to mean, or get him to "act out" against the reporters when he gets tired of politely going through their song-and-dance routine as they're blatantly trying to get him to slip up.

[Seriati]

So literally, on that day the coronavirus was still believed by the CDC to be under control and capable of being contained by mapping the cases and their contacts (they were wrong), and the market fundamentals were still strong with panic being the primary downward driver.  So yes, it still looked good.

Misrepresent much?

No I don't.  CNN reports it wasn't until 2 days after that statement that the CDC confirmed the fist case of community spread (after the CDC repeatedly refused to test the patient in question because they didn't their mapping criteria).  Here's the CNN link.  https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/27/health/us-cases-coronavirus-community-transmission/index.html

To state it expressly, what Trump said on 2/24 was accurate, the CDC didn't confirm a community case until 2/26 and changed it's guidance on who should be tested thereafter.

And remember, at this point tests were extremely limited because Federal rules restricted testing to the CDC and required extensive FDA approvals.  If we didn't have such rigid controls (which have served us well in other contexts), we'd never have been so far behind the testing curve.  I find it fascinating that Dems can't even acknowledge their own contribution on that front (Trump and bureaucratic rules are not exactly synonyms).

Stock markets

• Dow drops 1000 basis points
• All gains for 2020 wiped out - 2020 is now in negative territory for the DOW.  S&P 500 and Nasdaq still slightly positive for the year.
• Ryan Detrick, LPL Financial: “The [International Monetary Fund] already lowered China’s growth this year, but should the virus continue to spread to other parts of the world, we could see quickly decreasing earnings and growth outlooks."

So, all gains for the year had been lost, yet "the market fundamentals were still strong"; China's growth projection was already lowered, and there is a risk of decreased earnings and decreasing growth worldwide, yet "panic" was "the primary downward driver."

It's not my fault you don't understand what market fundamentals are.  Yes, the fundamentals were and generally are still strong.  That doesn't mean that can't change.  And stock markets are panic sensitive.

That's wmLambert level analysis, that is.

No, my analysis was measured.  Again though the response is to ignore what's actually going on and substitute your opinions for facts or others opinions and act like you are stating facts.

[Seriati]

Did you do that?  Nope, no context on any of the statements - and why didn't you include context?

What context do you need?

No, you're confused.  It's the context you need.  You seem to be following a fallicious path whereby you accept the context of the talking head in interpretting quotes rather than the context of the speaker when the quote was made.

It means inherently that you have no real analysis of whether the statement itself is true or false, or even means what you purport it to mean.  Phrases in long responses are not inherently independent arguments, and without understanding the real context you are simply spreading the second speaker's context.  Where the second speaker is trying to manipulate the narrative and you accept it uncritically, you're passing on a lie.

So literally, if you can't make a claim about Trump's lies based on your own analysis you have nothing to add to a grown up conversation and are just a repeater of others thoughts. 

[wmLambert]

...That's wmLambert level analysis, that is.

Your metrics are not all that, are they? I actually read Seriati's documented facts, and understood the logic therein. I'm sorry if you are unable to keep up. Perhaps searching anti-Trump blogs is not enough for you to do more than insult. Also, the "Laughter by Intimidation" debate fallacy is beneath you. I often skip over repeating the obvious because I give credit to posters I respond to, and actually believe they have the ability to research and find info from their own sources that may educate them better. I've found that opinionated posters refuse to believe anything that comes from sources they don't dig up for themselves. I don't have a portal to LexisNexis, so can't come up with actual quotes as quickly as some others, but do regularly archive interesting data before it is deleted or scrubbed by activist IT people who think they are doing their "cause" a service by getting rid of anything that casts doubt on their fundamental and often disinformed beliefs.

I put opposing purposeful disinformation as a main priority, so will respond when obvious mistruths are pushed, regardless of whatever political party it comes from. See my essay on AI-Jane if you want to understand how I don't blame those who believe disinformation - but do understand why they do.

[Seriati]

That's wmLambert level analysis, that is.

No, my analysis was measured.  Again though the response is to ignore what's actually going on and substitute your opinions for facts or others opinions and act like you are stating facts.

With apologies, I realize retrospectively that I appear to be endorsing that wmLambert's analysis is somehow shoddy or low level.  Not my intent or belief at all.

[cherrypoptart]

“I hope my colleagues learned from that,” he said. “[Ford] deserves to be treated with dignity. It takes enormous courage for a woman to come forward, under the bright lights of millions of people watching, and relive something that happened to her, assert that something happened to her. And she should be treated with respect,” and that she “should be given the benefit of the doubt and not be, you know, abused again by the system.”

Joe Biden

[ScottF]

It is kind of fascinating how the Tara Reade accusations aren't getting attention.

I just visited MSNBC, CNN and Foxnews and searched for "Biden" on the front page of all three. Various Biden articles are on the front pages but zero on that story. Zero.

[yossarian22c]

It is kind of fascinating how the Tara Reade accusations aren't getting attention.

I just visited MSNBC, CNN and Foxnews and searched for "Biden" on the front page of all three. Various Biden articles are on the front pages but zero on that story. Zero.

I thought Biden and Sanders were in virtual news black holes right now. Coronavirus has taken over the news cycle. Rarely has any story so overwhelmed election year political coverage like this.

I still think the best case scenario for democrats is Biden with a clear majority stepping aside at the convention for a better candidate. Either for health, family, or scandal reasons. I haven't seen an indication he has what it takes to run a presidential campaign, he still has all the gaffs, but without the charisma he used to have. Trump is going to hang Hunter and Ukraine around his neck like a lead balloon. Biden is Hillary 2.0 - weak in all the places Trump can exploit best and weak in all the ways that keep criticism of Trump answerable by whataboutism. Don't worry after Biden is solidified as the candidate, Trump and foxnews will run the story non stop. Why waste this shot at Biden right now? It will be overshadowed by coronavirus and there is still time to for the dems to avoid Biden if the attack really lands and hurts him in the polls.

[ScottF]

It is kind of fascinating how the Tara Reade accusations aren't getting attention.

I just visited MSNBC, CNN and Foxnews and searched for "Biden" on the front page of all three. Various Biden articles are on the front pages but zero on that story. Zero.

I thought Biden and Sanders were in virtual news black holes right now. Coronavirus has taken over the news cycle. Rarely has any story so overwhelmed election year political coverage like this.

I still think the best case scenario for democrats is Biden with a clear majority stepping aside at the convention for a better candidate. Either for health, family, or scandal reasons. I haven't seen an indication he has what it takes to run a presidential campaign, he still has all the gaffs, but without the charisma he used to have. Trump is going to hang Hunter and Ukraine around his neck like a lead balloon. Biden is Hillary 2.0 - weak in all the places Trump can exploit best and weak in all the ways that keep criticism of Trump answerable by whataboutism. Don't worry after Biden is solidified as the candidate, Trump and foxnews will run the story non stop. Why waste this shot at Biden right now? It will be overshadowed by coronavirus and there is still time to for the dems to avoid Biden if the attack really lands and hurts him in the polls.

I would agree if there were simply no stories at all relating to Biden (haven't done a similar search for Sanders) but they're there. Stories about his thoughts around single-payer health care, etc. but nothing on...that other thing.

[TheDrake]

Salon has it in a big banner

https://www.salon.com/

Huffington post has an article about how the networks aren't asking him questions about it

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tv-hosts-joe-biden-sexual-assault-allegation_n_5e80bc97c5b6cb9dc1a206d3

Just tidbits - I'm not projecting any conclusions based on these.

[Crunch]

"I have five grandchildren. Every day we talk or we text,” Joe Biden says. “I’ve got family scattered around, like I suspect everybody does."

Biden has 7 grandchildren. Although, at this point, I suspect he doesn't always recognize them nor able to recall their names. 

[Seriati]

"I have five grandchildren. Every day we talk or we text,” Joe Biden says. “I’ve got family scattered around, like I suspect everybody does."

Biden has 7 grandchildren. Although, at this point, I suspect he doesn't always recognize them nor able to recall their names.

Is that a new quote?  My searches don't show that coming up in the last month but rather almost 2 years ago when Biden did in fact have 5 grandchildren.  Since then Hunter's had to acknowledge an illegitimate child and his new wife is pregnant.  Sounds like a correct quote pulled out of context.  Can you provide the context?

[Crunch]

It was in my current news feed this morning, that's all I can say.  So maybe it was out of date, maybe it wasn't.

But it's certainly believable and in step with Biden's recent behavior.

[Seriati]

Crunch, that can't be the standard for passing on a quote.  Context matters on both sides.

[Crunch]

Ok, here's the link I could find. It's from a twitter account ... for some reason, not showing up on news outlets ...

You can see the crawl below Biden that it references coronavirus so it's current.

What are the next objections?

[Seriati]

Thanks!

[wmLambert]

What must be commented upon is the media's absolute refusal to report the news on Biden. His gaffes far surpass anything they claimed Dan Quayle ever did. I remember the famous spelling bee, when Quayle was given a card by the Left-leaning school officials to be a celebrity judge which was incorrect. He said as he read it, that he thought the girl got it right, but the card said she didn't. Within minutes, the supposed "gaffe" that denied a poor speller from getting a fair chance, was all over the airwaves, with total horizontal and vertical saturation everywhere. Such coverage is impossible unless it was planned ahead of time.

However; when Biden talks about the "Luhan virus" the media misses it?

[TheDeamon]

Ok, here's the link I could find. It's from a twitter account ... for some reason, not showing up on news outlets ...

You can see the crawl below Biden that it references coronavirus so it's current.

What are the next objections?

The comment not far below the tweet can account for that. Pregnant with a grandchild is not the same as having a grandchild. And he evidently is an ass and doesn't acknowledge the illegitimate child of Hunter's, so that would make 5. Although I'd think that the left-wits would be going after him for refusing to acknowledge grandchild #6 given his son has done so....

[wmLambert]

...The comment not far below the tweet can account for that. Pregnant with a grandchild is not the same as having a grandchild. And he evidently is an ass and doesn't acknowledge the illegitimate child of Hunter's, so that would make 5. Although I'd think that the left-wits would be going after him for refusing to acknowledge grandchild #6 given his son has done so....

Hmmm... Why didn't many in the MSM ever explain away the so-called "gaffes" of Dan Quayle that weren't? It's okay for them now to come to Biden's rescue, but they reveled at snarking Quayle.

[ScottF]

Bernie's out. It appears that Trump will be running unopposed.

[rightleft22]

Bernie's out. It appears that Trump will be running unopposed.

Its funny because its sad