Trump wasn't a billionaire before he got into the White House.
But, he is one now.
#4 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK AT 2020-03-28 07:16 PM | FLAG: NEWSWORTHY

Anyone here who does not like this are welcome to donate 1200 dollars back to the US treasury.
#87 | POSTED BY MSGT

That doesn't do anything for the economy. $1,200 spent on materialistic crap would, however, benefit the economy.

On the plus side I am smoking a chuck roast and a pork butt tomorrow!
#86 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

So then, is it a safe presumption that you're not on board with Judge Napalitano's suggestion that our constiutional rights are currently being violated?

Thankfully, I'm pretty sure this couple will be the only people to ingest fish tank cleaner as a CV preventative.
#75 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

With enough coverage and a simple acknowledgment by the CDC, as has been done, but would go a lot further if further acknowledged by Trump himself, I believe you're right.

Truly a $500 billion slush fund solely for corporations. Isn't this bordering fascism?

At some point you just need to acknowledge that this is clearly a Darwin Award couple. It's tragic but that's what it is.
#68 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

I did just that in #69. Yet you, for some reason, refuse to acknowledge that Donnie and those around him made a mistake. Trump has never been nuanced in the information he's provided, which is a flaw in character, IMO. Especially if you're the one being relied upon to provide cogent and pertinent information about the public's health. If he's incapable of providing such information in a responsible manner by first understanding that nuance (i.e., that which you suggest he was ignorant to), should he be the one delivering this message?

To your point, I believe the first question to be asked when addressing this mistake, to improve the method of delivering this information, why was this nuance overlooked and not publicly acknowledged in the first place? Why didn't the medical professionals surrounding him, influencing the speech that is written for him, push the president to acknowledge a level of nuance that could have saved a life?

Yes, JEFF. Many in the public need to be protected from themselves, especially when they are being fed misleading information lacking nuance. Should Trump be the one delivering this information if he's incapable of understanding important nuance?

Hopefully this couple is the first and the last.
#66 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Should we highlight and breakdown the story enough, it just might very well be true.

Part of that breakdown and what needs to be highlighted is where this couple got the idea in the first place. Acknowledge the mistake that was made and move forward with consideration of not making the same mistake.

That's in Trump's hands and nobody else's. Just as the couple should consider personal responsibility in their actions, Trump must also take personal responsibility in what he provides as pertinent information. There are just as many stupid people out there as there are smart/aware/cognitive individuals, maybe more. Any message from the presidential pulpit MUST first take the stupid into consideration first. The rest of us are capable of acknowledging warning signs on bottles of tank cleaner fluid while, clearly, some are not. Those who are not must be acknowledged first and foremost. Otherwise, we end up in a situation like this where stupid people become confused and perceive the notion that it's perfectly okay to take the president's word over a bottle of tank cleaner's warning label.

Those people exist whether you or Trump want to acknowledge. It would be prudent for Trump to start acknowledging this fact; for you, not as much. So I won't hold it against you if you refuse.

#64 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Do you think there's a group of people out there that would start, not continue, but START to smoke cigarettes should Trump stand at the podium declaring smoking cigarettes does not cause lung cancer?

I'm of the opinion that said group of people exist. Whether under Trump, Obama, or Bush; they exist.

Your suggestion that it's impossible to anticipate that someone would be so stupid is what makes you naive.

#50 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Again, more nuance required by the POTUS that was not provided. Until now, that is, with the CDC issuing warnings to establish the required nuance to keep people safe.

As in, AFTER THE FACT. Had Trump done his due diligence, CDC would not have had to so, would you agree?

1 couple in the US stupidly takes fish tank cleaner and Trump personally killed them.
#1 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

A little bit of nuance provided by Trump probably would have eliminated their confusion, not leading to death.

But for some reason, you're incapable of acknowledging such. Why is that?

Are they acquiring it from specialty automotive stores?
#45 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Your answer is in #44. And is something you haven't acknowledged quite yet, making me believe it's a hole in your analogy.

I don't know of too many people who are swallowing gasoline, paint or glue to get high.
#43 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Now you're conflating?

This couple ingested tank cleaner thinking it would benefit their health during a health crisis. Had the POTUS not suggested that a chemical that could easily be mistaken for a pharmaceutical drug be used as a potential cure for COVID, I doubt this couple would have ingested the tank cleaner. Their intent, clearly, was not to get high. They were told by someone they trust, probably even more than their own doctor if they are true Trump supporters, something they took to heart, became ultimately confused by because of Trump's lack of nuance, that led to tragedy.

#35 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Why bother spending $400 on a NO tank used for a car when you can buy a $2 canister of whip cream and get just as high?

Are you just naive or are you trolling?

Once again I can't tell considering you're so short on convincing arguments here.

You are trying to play gotcha and it's lame.
#23 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Seems to me the woman is trying to blame the president for providing her bunk advice.

Considering Trump gave said advice, are you suggesting the woman is not justified in placing partial blame on the President's doorstep?

Cholorquine is a chemical that is used in a product sold as fish tank cleaner.
#29 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

She told NBC that "Trump kept saying it was pretty much a cure," and "they kept saying that it was approved for other things."

Yes, he said it was effective against malaria as well. Why is it so confusing to you that the President should be more considerate about what he suggests to the American people? The video in Laura's #27 makes it pretty clear that Trump was uninterested in providing any nuance related to Cholorquine. Seems irresponsible of him, IMO, but here you are to tell us that it doesn't matter what the president of the united states says; interestingly enough. Even if he's telling people one thing when they should be considering another, eh JEFF?

*Until we know...

Judge Napalitano does a good job of laying out this argument, but I still find it unconvincing.

Especially under the premise that "George Washington " who presided at the Constitutional Convention " looks at James Madison " who was the scrivener at the Convention " and says, "None of this counts if people get sick, right?"

Clearly, that wasn't part of the conversation. But so weren't many other factors that the U.S. has faced across its relatively short existence. The premise also contends that our current issue at hand is synonymous with another flu, something that should not be worried about.

I'm of the opinion that if the above is true, this ends up being another flu, then so be it, but we do not know that for sure. Error on the side of caution is an approach that I appreciate at this point; at least until we know more about this invisible foe that we are facing.

From what we know now, we could easily go on about our lives while this disease spreads and ravages our healthcare system's infrastructure. Continue spreading it, some people will get it without symptoms, some will get it with symptoms that are no stronger than the flu or cold. I say good for those people, they have strong immune systems that they should be proud of. Yet, this discounts the NUMEROUS groups of people who don't, relegating them as second class citizens in this formula. Should they have to choose between life or death just so others can live comfortably? Just so they can exercise the massively expanded sense of freedom that the average American feels entitled to (e.g., you do know that 'freedom of speech' does not guarantee freedom from consequences of said speech, right? Many, many don't.)?

Once we know exactly the danger involved, I agree with the measures instituted by the likes of California. It's a worthwhile sacrifice for EVERYONE involved. Had our rights been violated because of an interest by one person or group to establish a power grab in politics or in the economy, I'd be in full agreement with Napalitano. But that's not what we are facing. This is not a hoax or conspiracy to oust the sitting POTUS.

Those that are dying are Trump's supporters -- the elderly.

I need some shrooms!
#30 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

I'm looking to do some DMT with my buddy once they let us back out the house. He scored some good stuff over Christmas. Really looking forward to meeting the entity that occupies the center of the universe.

That's less than 2 percent of infected dying, and they are mostly worthless moldy oldies.... get back to werk peons! - Trump, MB & Assoc
#14 | POSTED BY CORKY

That's the exact message I took home from Tucker Carlson tonight.

Ironic considering it was he who seemed to convince Trump that this was a serious situation, which led to Trump changing his tone almost overnight.

Anybody remember Captain Tripps?

So this order does nothing? Sounds like Trump is just trying to take credit for something GM was already doing.
#6 | POSTED BY JOHNNY_HOTSAUCE

Bingo.

Sad story whether COVID related or not.

Dollars to donuts says she's offered a position within Trump's administration. I mean she lost her job at FOX NEWS for her loyalty to Trump.

#12 | POSTED BY DOCNJO

Has nothing to do with my post.

Thanks for solidifying my original presumption.