[jlisenbe]

Yep. Blatant partisanship will do it every time!

Dodging questions does it, too. "I cannot understand why you are so quick to criticize Trump for simply saying he thought a particular drug showed promised in treating CV, while going so far out of your way to make excuses for Obama."

[talaniman]

Yep. Blatant partisanship will do it every time!

Dodging questions does it, too. "I cannot understand why you are so quick to criticize Trump for simply saying he thought a particular drug showed promised in treating CV, while going so far out of your way to make excuses for Obama."

Nobody understands why you keep using the same Benghazi meme for every criticism of the dufus either.

[jlisenbe]

Just like, I suppose, no one understands why the whole issue of the elderly couple taking fish tank cleaner could have ever been blamed on Trump having pointed out the value of a prescription med. I do dearly love to highlight what seems to be such partisanship in giving Obama a pass for something he was clearly responsible for while throwing mud at Trump over something he had no control over. I guess an even-handed approach to being critical is what I'm after.

[talaniman]

I NEVER gave him a pass as the buck stopped with him, his words, and actions. The same standard that the dufus should be held to. That doesn't seem to be enough for you and that's too bad, and sad.

[Wondergirl]

It was much too early to throw out possible remedy names. Plus, Trump knows how gullible his true believers are.

I've never given anyone a pass for Benghazi.

[tomder55]

not buying it . His comments were taken out of context by the selective c/p job Athos did . Here is his full comment ;keeping in mind that the very next day ,the FDA approved it as a compassionate use trial .

The FDA has also approved compassionate use for a significant number of patients. You know what that means. We’re also reviewing drugs that are approved abroad or drugs approved here for other uses.And, you know, one of the things that I’m most proud of that I got was Right to Try. That’s where somebody who’s ill, somebody who’s very sick — terminally ill, usually. In past administrations — we signed this a year and a half ago — you wouldn’t be able to even think about getting any of the drugs that may be showing great promise. Now — and they’ve been trying for many decades to get this approved and it sounds simple, but it’s not because there’s liability involved and lots of other things. And I was able to get it approved, working with Congress. Right to Try.This is beyond Right to Try. What we’re talking about today is beyond Right to Try. Right to Try has been, by the way, a tremendous success. People are living now that had no chance of living, where we take treatments that would — things that — that would have to go through years of a process. And if somebody was terminally ill — and I would say, “Why wouldn’t they be able to try this?” They’d go to Asia, they’d go to Europe, they’d go all over the world to try and find something. Or some people, if they had no money, would go home to die. They’d go home to die; they had no hope.Right to Try has been an incredible success. But this is beyond Right to Try. If treatments known to be safe in Europe, Japan, or other nations are effective against the virus, we’ll use that information to protect the health and safety of American people. Nothing will stand in our way as we pursue any avenue to find what best works against this horrible virus.Now, a drug called chloroquine — and some people would add to it “hydroxy-.” Hydroxychloroquine. So chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine. Now, this is a common malaria drug. It is also a drug used for strong arthritis. If somebody has pretty serious arthritis, also uses this in a somewhat different form. But it is known as a malaria drug, and it’s been around for a long time and it’s very powerful. But the nice part is, it’s been around for a long time, so we know that if it — if things don’t go as planned, it’s not going to kill anybody.When you go with a brand-new drug, you don’t know that that’s going to happen. You have to see and you have to go — long test. But this has been used in different forms — very powerful drug — in different forms. And it’s shown very encouraging — very, very encouraging early results. And we’re going to be able to make that drug available almost immediately. And that’s where the FDA has been so great. They — they’ve gone through the approval process; it’s been approved. And they did it — they took it down from many, many months to immediate. So we’re going to be able to make that drug available by prescription or states.I spoke with Governor Cuomo about it at great length last night, and he wants to be right on — on the — he wants to be first on line. And so I think that’s a tremendous — there’s tremendous promise, based on the results and other tests. There’s tremendous promise. And normally the FDA would take a long time to approve something like that, and it’s — it was approved very, very quickly and it’s now approved, by prescription. Individual states will handle it. They can handle it. Doctors will handle it. And I think it’s going to be — I think it’s going to be great.Then we’re quickly studying this drug, and while we’re continuing to study it — but the studying is going to be also done in — as it’s given out to large groups of people, perhaps in New York and other places. We’ll study it there.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings...ess-briefing-6


So informing people on the 19th ;and the FDA approved it on the 20th is "much too early" ?

[Wondergirl]

not buying it . His comments were taken out of context by the selective c/p job Athos did . Here is his full comment ;keeping in mind that the very next day ,the FDA approved it as a compassionate use trial
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings...ess-briefing-6
So informing people on the 19th ;and the FDA approved it on the 20th is "much too early" ?

The FDA didn't approve it for just anyone. Apparently, that couple wasn't the only one who has a problem understanding. The sentence is, "The FDA has also approved compassionate use for a significant number of patients."

[tomder55]

and that was a true statement . NYC began their compassionate use trial last week . https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/coro...-know/2341931/


and the operative words throughout his comment is by prescription. He advises no one to take the drug on their own

[jlisenbe]

It was much too early to throw out possible remedy names. Plus, Trump knows how gullible his true believers are.

How do you know it was much too early? Even Clete had already been talking here about the drugs being successful in Australia. It was well known to just about everyone.

I've never given anyone a pass for Benghazi.

Oh? So you do think it's fair to hold Obama and HC responsible for the loss of four lives?

I NEVER gave him a pass as the buck stopped with him, his words, and actions. The same standard that the dufus should be held to. That doesn't seem to be enough for you and that's too bad, and sad.

The same standard? So you do agree that it's fair to hold Obama and HC responsible for the loss of four lives, and that's it's trivial nonsense to suggest that Trump has any responsibility at all for the tragic situation with the elderly couple, and that even the smallest suggestion that it amounted to "Trump's first kill of an American" is foolishness on a very high level?

[Wondergirl]

How do you know it was much too early? Even Clete had already been talking here about the drugs being successful in Australia. It was well known to just about everyone.

Much too early for a non-medical person to throw it out as a possibility -- and that's all it was at that time, a possibility. Trump was foolish on a very high level.

Oh? So you do think it's fair to hold Obama and HC responsible for the loss of four lives?

Yes, if they're guilty.

[jlisenbe]

Much too early for a non-medical person to throw it out as a possibility -- and that's all it was at that time, a possibility. Trump was foolish on a very high level.

How do you it was much too early? Too early based on what standard?

Yes, if they're guilty.

The magical "if". It's the pass you're giving to Obama. You just can't help yourself.

[Wondergirl]

How do you it was much too early? Too early based on what standard?

Nothing official had yet been said about that as a remedy. It needs to undergo clinical trials. Hyping it wasn't his call as a non-medical person.

The magical "if". It's the pass you're giving to Obama. You just can't help yourself.

Why did the Republicans let it pass?

[talaniman]

@Tom.

Shame to promise people something that could still be months off even if it works in other places. Even if they found someone who could use it now as a last resort, you would have to release liability for the doctor and hospital so why is everybody all jacked up when despite the claims and high hope NOBODY in the world is doing any wide spread uses with VERIFIED results.

@JL

When you going to accept the results of 7 investigations by multiple entities and stop pestering people to join your lynch mob after how many years? Okay Obama and HC bear responsibility for Benghazi! What exactly do you want from that?

Nothing official had yet been said about that as a remedy. It needs to undergo clinical trials. Hyping it wasn't his call as a non-medical person.

Why did the Republicans let it pass?

EXACTLY! What's wrong with your fellow conservatives WG?

[jlisenbe]

Nothing official had yet been said about that as a remedy. It needs to undergo clinical trials. Hyping it wasn't his call as a non-medical person.

Of course there had been official statements. Studies had been conducted both in France and China with the use of the drug and the results had been encouraging and had been publicized, so your statement was not correct. Now granted the studies were not complete, but the results had been encouraging, and that was what Trump referrering to. If a person wants to say that Trump should have been more reserved in his statement, then that's fine, but to suggest that he is somehow responsible for a person ingesting fish tank cleaner is lunacy, or to state that, "Trump was foolish on a very high level," is really getting WAYYY too much sugar for a dime.

Now Obama's State Department had known for weeks that the Benghazi consulate needed more security. Nothing was done. They then knew the place was under attack. Again, nothing was done. They knew it was a premeditated act of terror, but they sent Susan Rice out to lie to the American people and say it was a spontaneous reaction to an offensive video.

Might add that not a single person was ever held responsible by Obama for the Benghazi disaster.

So tell me. Who do you consider to be the truly guilty party in this discussion?

Okay Obama and HC bear responsibility for Benghazi! What exactly do you want from that?

Good to hear you say that. So I guess my statement that Trump is still three people "killed" short of Obama is correct?

EXACTLY! What's wrong with your fellow conservatives WG?

She is about as much of a conservative as I am a liberal dem.

[Wondergirl]

She is about as much of a conservative as I am a liberal dem.

How do you figure?

[jlisenbe]

Perhaps I'm wrong. Give us your conservative bonafides. I have noticed nothing from your posts that strikes me as conservative, but I'm willing to listen.

[jlisenbe]

Here is why people lose confidence in the press. The first headline is from the NY Times. "President Trump Called Hydroxychloroquine a 'Game Changer,' But Experts Warn Against Self-Medicating With the Drug. Here’s What You Need to Know." On what planet did Trump suggest that people self medicate? When did we need to be told that a person should not self medicate with a couple of drugs that require a prescription?

The other is from, of all places, Weather.com. "Coronavirus Could Kill 200,000 in U.S. in Best Case Scenario; Americans Told to Stay Home Through April." I watched the press conference. The range she gave was 80 to 160 thousand, and she said she hoped it would be below the 80 figure. Later they had this headline. "1.6 to 2.2 million U.S. Deaths if No Precautionary Measures Taken." Well, aren't we taking precautionary measures?

This is one of our problems. In an effort to get traffic, these news agencies are going with the most sensational headlines possible.

[talaniman]

Here is why people lose confidence in the press. The first headline is from the NY Times. "President Trump Called Hydroxychloroquine a 'Game Changer,' But Experts Warn Against Self-Medicating With the Drug. Here’s What You Need to Know." On what planet did Trump suggest that people self medicate? When did we need to be told that a person should not self medicate with a couple of drugs that require a prescription?

Obviously the couple in question acted from a profound fear, and were desperate enough to self medicate on POISON. Knowing that people are very afraid and even desperate, caution and discretion are advised, but nobody can ever accuse the dufus of either, and while he isn't responsible for their actions, a callous disregard for the effects of his words has always been a trademark of his style.

The other is from, of all places, Weather.com. "Coronavirus Could Kill 200,000 in U.S. in Best Case Scenario; Americans Told to Stay Home Through April." I watched the press conference. The range she gave was 80 to 160 thousand, and she said she hoped it would be below the 80 figure. Later they had this headline. "1.6 to 2.2 million U.S. Deaths if No Precautionary Measures Taken." Well, aren't we taking precautionary measures?

This is one of our problems. In an effort to get traffic, these news agencies are going with the most sensational headlines possible.

They all do it. Always have in recent memory. There is a lot of competition for viewers.

[jlisenbe]

If Trump had NOT mentioned the two drugs, then libs would be endlessly criticizing him for failing to promote hope.

I have no issue with criticizing Trump for his mindless mouth running. I'll join with you on that, but to suggest that he killed someone with his remark is taking it way, way too far.

[talaniman]

I think the distinctions in the reacts to the dufus words and actions are subject to the perspectives of those that have certain opinions. Of course the range wildly, but as I said some hold him responsible for the death, some do not, and know he has a big mouth, and some know he is a liar who must be looked at closely and verified.

No doubt where we all fall in our opinions, but I've never criticized him for his big mouth just the lies and exaggerations and I consider them dangerous.