[tweet]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1241367239900778501?s=20[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/nprscience/status/1272598127397056512?s=20[/tweet]
Does anyone really believe we'd have this problem if Trump hadn't decided, on the basis of little (and preliminary) credible evidence, to pressure the FDA on the basis that this had "real chance to be one of the biggest a game changers in the history of medicine"? To me, this is one clearcut example of government apparatuses abruptly shifting course at the whims of an emperor with no clothes and increasingly little coherence. Who with any credibility even attempts to make claims ranking game-changers in the history of medicine, let alone on the basis of very preliminary and incomplete evidence?
More than anything, I wonder about the motive behind defending Trump on the grounds that his accusers/attackers aren't being "fair" to him. I question whether that game is worth the candle, especially in this forum. It almost feels like gaslighting to defend someone you claim not to support and plan to vote against in some strange attempt to "both sides" most everyone else around these parts. And yes, I too can certainly think of statements from posters on this board about Trump, among other subjects, that I would deem "unfair." But I don't see what the point of calling them out is when, 90% of the time, I think the thrust of their criticisms are pretty valid.
Maybe you should rename your handle "Devil's Advocate" -- and it could even work on two levels, given what folks like OF and burger seem to think about the President's morality! ;)
[tweet]https://twitter.com/nprscience/status/1272598127397056512?s=20[/tweet]
(06-17-2020, 11:48 AM)BostonCard Wrote: So apparently, now the US is stuck with 66 million doses of stockpiled hydroxychloroquine.
https://www.businessinsider.com/hydroxyc...rus-2020-6
I guess we will be well-prepared for the next malaria pandemic.
BC
Does anyone really believe we'd have this problem if Trump hadn't decided, on the basis of little (and preliminary) credible evidence, to pressure the FDA on the basis that this had "real chance to be one of the biggest a game changers in the history of medicine"? To me, this is one clearcut example of government apparatuses abruptly shifting course at the whims of an emperor with no clothes and increasingly little coherence. Who with any credibility even attempts to make claims ranking game-changers in the history of medicine, let alone on the basis of very preliminary and incomplete evidence?
More than anything, I wonder about the motive behind defending Trump on the grounds that his accusers/attackers aren't being "fair" to him. I question whether that game is worth the candle, especially in this forum. It almost feels like gaslighting to defend someone you claim not to support and plan to vote against in some strange attempt to "both sides" most everyone else around these parts. And yes, I too can certainly think of statements from posters on this board about Trump, among other subjects, that I would deem "unfair." But I don't see what the point of calling them out is when, 90% of the time, I think the thrust of their criticisms are pretty valid.
Maybe you should rename your handle "Devil's Advocate" -- and it could even work on two levels, given what folks like OF and burger seem to think about the President's morality! ;)