In this instance, I think I can work it out, pretty much:
–“President Trump on ‘Injecting’ Disinfectants,” C-SPAN, April 23, 2020
But not “through the skin”; rather, “in some other way,” apparently involving the trachea.
I and others have pointed this out before, that besides the verbal diarrhea Trump put out, he actually never tried to defend, or explain the disinfectant on the inside bit as something that shouldn’t have been interpreted the way many people did (specifically, that he meant injecting sunlight or whatever).
As if arguing the defense of said diarrhea, and declaration of many being ‘incorrect’ by using ‘bleach’ isn’t silly enough on it’s own (since interpretations are subjective, but disinfectant being synonymous with bleach is objective).
But anyway, Trump’s response was (after many gymnastics trying to explain for him that he meant x instead of y) was…wait for it…sarcasm!
Reporter, April 24: Can you clarify your comments about injections of disinfectant?
Trump : No, I was asking a question sarcastically to reporters like you, just to see what would happen.
Now, disinfectant, or doing this, maybe on the hands, would work. And I was asking the question of the gentleman who was there yesterday — Bill — because when they say that something will last three or four hours or six hours, but if the sun is out or if they use disinfectant, it goes away in less than a minute. Did you hear about this yesterday? But I was asking a sarcastic — and a very sarcastic question — to the reporters in the room about disinfectant on the inside. But it does kill it and it would kill it on the hands and that would make things much better. That was done in the form of a sarcastic question to the reporters. Okay.
So there it is, he was up there in a covid crisis, not to give comfort and useful scientific information to the public, but to troll reporters.
That’s why I always found the hair splitting on this event to be hilarious, any angle you take, there’s no justifiable defense for how he handled it.
1 Like
The language in my quote of Trump, in the post immediately above yours, is “ultraviolet or just very powerful light.” I don’t see how that can be interpreted as bleach.
The Press? Sure. They can change their rules midstream. POTUS cannot. Not really. There’s too much leftover highbrow British protocol stinking up the government. That shit is systemic.
With people like Trump you need to understand their purpose is to have a power difference between themselves and the others. The language is chosen on purpose. It is chosen so in the future they can take various positions against you and their words will fit each a gender. You then don’t who is attacking you and who or what point to attack.
You see this clearly in how the right and left reported on Trump. The left did not know where to punch. The right was just throwing fists hoping one would connect. The right connected more than the left could block.
He could be on the golf course and say that the left is lazy because he works so much. That media would take the words and report on the words nit his actions. He would make outlandish claims he was up at all hours doing work. That is why he would tweet in the am hours. It’s no different to a employee sending an email as the complete their morning ablutions. Tell the boss they work hard. But really is was just a little shart.
Another good example is January 6th 2021. Trump was able to manipulate many followers into doing something he never directly said to do. But people interpreted the gaps in his words to mean what they did.
Trump is very much an intelligent person. Is he a good person or a righteous person. No idea.
I think ‘sly’ would be a better word. An intelligent president would have found a way to expose and/or solve the pandemic and he failed at both.
The amateur sleuths to whom this thread is devoted are intelligent.
2 Likes
But it doesn’t even matter as he said he was trolling reporters and wasn’t serious, not that he meant something else. My whole point of the previous post, actually.
Which was that his intent was not to get up there and inform people using scientific knowledge.
Important to stiffarm the anti-science/political angling crowd more than ever. Scientists and their work needs to continue to be respected, especially relative to amateurs. The more the anti-science FUD crowd gets pounded down, the less impediment there is to actual progress.
The political agenda stuff only gets in the way of solving serious problems, with medicine, disease, climate, whatever. Politicians aren’t going to solve these problems, scientists can. Trying to discredit them with theories is only hurting progress.
People use their intelligence in different ways.
Trump had an agenda and I would suspect he got mighty close to reaching it.
–Wikipedia, “Ultraviolet,” “Applications”
You are obviously foursquare opposed to that political-angling crowd. 
Obviously it’s for the politics fora, but the fascinating thing about Trump is how total preciseness is expected when criticising his words, when there’s nothing precise about anything he says. This is a weakness that he plays on.
5 Likes
a weakness of blind faith in general. Whether it’s man worshipped as gOD, gOD, etc.
1 Like
I think he was just babbling, I certainly don’t think he really wanted people to inject Lysol or something. Nevertheless, that is what he said to an extent. Not a great look, but the lesson was to be more circumspect about public statements in important areas like public health during an epidemic.
3 Likes
this was a quote from a different event. one on the UV light, one other conference when disinfectant was mentioned. but it’s old news now, let’s move on.
1 Like
That’s pretty much my take.
2 Likes
Greenwald strikes again and makes us remember stuff we never should have forgotten.
7 Likes
Why would China release a highly contagious virus on its population then wait almost a year to vaccinate those infected?
1 Like
Why would the Chinese authorities shoot themselves in the foot and be good world citizens by containing it within their own shoes which would garner world support and sympathy?
Have you met China?
4 Likes
They wouldn’t. They were doing just fine increasing their economic influence around the world, and had a good portion of the world still sleeping on them.
Just silly, inevitable conspiratorial hogwash in an eagerness to get to some desired narrative, or without thinking it through.
Which is why you see your why question, answered with more questions. There is no actual logical reason.
1 Like
It’d look a bit bloody suspicious if they just happened to have a vaccine on hand, wouldn’t it?
The problem with this sort of thing is that it really is impossible to prove or disprove, but TBH I don’t think it really matters if the release was accidental or deliberate - or even if it came from bats. China screwed up, again. It’s not the first time they’ve done it. The debate is merely over how badly they screwed up this time.
@mups: I think you underestimate the Chinese desire for revenge. This was never about money as such. It was about avenging themselves upon the countries that humiliated China in the 19th Century. China has never even made any secret of this. They had the motive, the ability, and the potential for victory with a bioweapon attack. That doesn’t mean they actually did it, but it does mean that “why on earth would China do that?” is a poor argument.
1 Like