>Not comparable.
Nor did it ever actually happen.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/fact-check-no-trump-did-not-t...
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jul/11/joe-biden/...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/live-blog/202...
Not anywhere will you find Trump saying to “inject bleach”. That was the media narrative, completely their words.
Seems to me like he is very clearly talking about the viability of injecting disinfectant.
https://www.cedars-sinai.org/newsroom/cedars-sinai-statement...
This was released 3 days prior to his statement: https://irdirect.net/prviewer/release/id/4294930
> Our team has shown that administering a specific spectrum of UV-A light can eradicate viruses in infected human cells (including coronavirus) and bacteria in the area while preserving healthy cells
UV light was mentioned prior in the presser. Trump wasn't specific, but you can't say he said inject bleach, read the transcript for yourself:
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-coronaviru...
It's disingenuous to say he was suggesting for people to inject bleach or disinfectant.
Even if he didn't clarify what disinfectant, he sure as hell didn't tell people to do anything, he was talking about research.
And "something like that" in his statement is not necessarily just filler. Read charitably, he could be asking if a similar effect can be achieved with something else. We use some types of disinfectants for broadly similar effects--like mouth wash. In the past, we've used iodine to disinfect water for drinking, which was ingested.
I'm not saying its a plausible strategy, but its not pants on fire stupid to wonder out-loud if you can get something like a disinfectant inside. I'd imagine you can't, but I can't articulate why you can't beyond the likelihood the required concentrations would destroy your bodies' cells too.
I watched that press conference on tv when it aired. It wasn't even the top 20 dumbest things he said in that conference.
The more people learn to do this, the further we'll get in our discourse.
I'd love to watch a breakdown of current news stories done with charitable interpretations only. Does anyone know of a news source that doesn't drop down into mischaracterizations of every opposing viewpoint?
You mean everyone, from either tribe, when it suits them?
Personally I always try to figure out what a politician is intending to say, even if they are only semi-coherent in conveying it. This is the leader of the free world, after all, with his finger on the button...
> “Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart —you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—it’s true!—but when you’re a conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged—but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me—it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right—who would have thought?), but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners—now it used to be three, now it’s four—but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years—but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.”
