Coronavirus: Disinfectant firm issues warning after Trump comments

  • Thread starter Thread starter OraLabora
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
vz71 said:
people are making up fact in some bizarre notion that everyone just knows what he meant…and it is bad.
Click to expand...
Who’s making it up?

www.mediaite.com

Fox’s Neil Cavuto Tears Trump’s Claim on Disinfectants

Fox Business host Neil Cavuto called out President Donald Trump's claim that he was being sarcastic when he suggested injecting disinfectant as a means to treat the coronavirus, pointing out that there was nothing to indicate "the dismissal he was giving today."
www.mediaite.com www.mediaite.com
 
I, for one, do NOT hate Trump, and I do NOT want Biden to be POTUS. Nor am I indoctrinated by “left wing liberal nuts on DNC run media.” But I did more than read the news report: I saw the video live. Trump was indeed suggesting, in the form of a polite question, that maybe we can investigate injecting disinfectant to clean out, that is, kill the virus. No amount of spin can defend this. However, despite the stupidity of the question, it is more important what Trump and Congress do now to protect us from the virus and restore the economy and people’s jobs and livelihood.
 
Last edited:
vz71 said:
Here is an example.
Click to expand...
But there is no fabrication in saying that Trump suggested injecting disinfectant into the human body to kill the virus. He did in fact do this. As I pointed out to you already:
JapaneseKappa said:
Telling doctors to investigate injecting disinfectant into the human body does in fact constitute a suggestion that this is a reasonable thing to do. He did not suggest Joe Public do this, but he did suggest it was an idea the doctors should pursue.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Trump had to say today that he was being sarcastic to save face for asking such a stupid question yesterday. Like all of us, he is only human and has feelings. Was it also political? In an election year, EVERYTHING can be interpreted as politically motivated. Even, as another poster noted, Trump’s repeated statement that he is not happy with Rep. Gov. Kemp of Georgia for partially reopening the economy of his state. Trump does not want to take the blame if the death toll mounts as a result.
 
Last edited:
But this article is about using light to disinfect things like PPE.

Hospitals already have pulse light to disinfect patient rooms.

This isn’t meant for internal use. Or treatments of humans.
 
vz71 said:
Sounds like a question.
Even has a question mark at the end to let the reader know it is a question.
Click to expand...
vz71 said:
He asked a question…he did not make a suggestion.
Click to expand...
Did Trumop punctuate his statement?
Maybe like Victor Borge? 🤣 🤣 🤣
The syntax is indicative not interrogative.
It, in reality, sounds like a statement.
 
Last edited:
JapaneseKappa said:
He didn’t suggest people run out and try it, but he clearly suggested that his team should look into it.
" that hasn’t been checked but you’re gonna test it." is not a question.
Click to expand...
I see.
We are reduced to using sentence fragments.
I would like the rest of the sentence, in context.

The words…not what people think they mean.
 
dvdjs said:
The syntax is indicative not interrogative.
It, in reality, sounds like a statement.
Click to expand...
The characteristics of a question are met.
Clearly well enough that the transcripts indicate it so.
Perhaps your expertise is superior to the transcriber?
 
vz71 said:
A news article that doesn’t actually address the topic at hand.
Click to expand...
You are standing awfully proudly behind your shield of ignorance. If you are so confident Trump’s words exonerate him, produce the context which proves this. I’ve already provided one explicit non-question suggestion, here is another:
Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that. So you’re going to have to use medical doctors, but it sounds interesting to me.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
vz71 said:
The characteristics of a question are met.
Clearly well enough that the transcripts indicate it so.
Perhaps your expertise is superior to the transcriber?
Click to expand...
Ther syntax is indicative.
vz71 said:
Perhaps your expertise is superior to the transcriber?
Click to expand...
Who prodiced the transcripts./
Why was an question mark introduced into a statement that was clearly indicative.
Who did that>? And when did they do it: Before of after the claim of sarcasm?
 
vz71 said:
And now personal attack when the argument fails.
Click to expand...
Now you’re claiming victory in the face of two unanswered evidences against your case. If you think there is a context which exonerates the president, provide it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top