4 ms·

How many examples (this being 1) would an "open minded" person need to find it plausible?

• caconym_ 7y ago
  An "example" would be a source saying that these people were not pushed out, or that equivalent roles were created and re-filled during/after the "restructuring". That has not yet been provided in this subthread. GGP's post is non sequitur nonsense—all he's doing is throwing out the "liberal" slur that's so popular with Reddit quarantine zone denizens and hoping nobody on either "side" notices that what he's saying doesn't make an ounce of sense.
  • jfengel 7y ago
    Given that the user's name is "grayed-down", I'm pretty sure they're aware of that. It's an uninterrupted litany of standard tactics for distracting, evading, and ignoring. Poe's Law mean that it's hard to tell somebody pretending to be obtuse from somebody actually being obtuse.
  • ponsin 7y ago
    A website run with a leftist agenda, or any agenda for that matter, can take "facts" and word it in ways that can give the reader a false world view. To give an example from the right, while most of what fox news says is factually accurate, most open minded person would not use it to know what's going on in the world.
    • caconym_ 7y ago
      Did or did not the Trump administration restructure the NSC, causing those responsible for preparing for and responding to pandemics and similar events to exit the organization? If so, were or were not equivalent positions created in the new structure and filled? Those are the only questions that matter—what is or is not said about any of it in news media is irrelevant. So I'll ask you, do you have answers to those questions that conflict with the ones published by Snopes? Or, if not, do you have additional questions and answers that show how those questions aren't the whole story? If not, to be perfectly frank, fuck off. It beggars belief that people like you are on here peddling sophomoric wisdom about media bias and backpedaling whataboutism in the face of this crisis.
      • grayed-down 7y ago
        Good questions worthy of a response if asked by someone with less negative energy.
        • caconym_ 7y ago
          How convenient! You people really are something else. If you really believe the truth is on your side, I'll tell you what I told the other guy: let's see it! Otherwise, reasonable people like me are going to assume you're full of shit, and finding dumb excuses not to answer straightforward questions is not going to change that impression. On the other hand, if your true goal is to play the victim, you're doing a fine job. Keep at it.
        • dr_dshiv 7y ago
          I am genuinely curious if you could share.
          • grayed-down 7y ago
            First Question: Yes. But the mission and responsibility was not eliminated. To claim that is irresponsible at best. Second Question: Obviously not. Third Question: The Snopes piece is devious in that it suggests, as a result of the restructuring, the Trump administration single-handedly gave up the mission and responsibity of responding to infectious disease crises, pandemics and bio-weapon attacks. The reality is that there are layers upon layers of civilian and military procedure and doctrine supporting this mission and responibility.
            • caconym_ 7y ago
              > Yes. But the mission and responsibility was not eliminated. To claim that is irresponsible at best. > The Snopes piece is devious in that it suggests, as a result of the restructuring, the Trump administration single-handedly gave up the mission and responsibity of responding to infectious disease crises, pandemics and bio-weapon attacks. If I own a pizza restaurant, one could say that its "mission and responsibility" are to make pizza, but if I fire all my kitchen staff, how am I going to fulfill that mission when someone walks in the door and orders a pizza? I'm not, is the answer. But that contradiction will only become apparent when somebody walks in the door and orders a pizza, at which time it's too late for me to do anything but send them away empty-handed. That is the point we're at now, except instead of making a pizza we're trying to save our society and economy from the ravages of a global pandemic. > The reality is that there are layers upon layers of civilian and military procedure and doctrine supporting this mission and responibility. I don't think anybody's saying otherwise, but it's an open question whether the organizations that embody these layers all have sufficient leadership and funding to respond to actual emergencies. So far, it seems that the answer is generally no—exhibit A would be our profound inability to test at scale. On the other hand, certain local public health systems are certainly stepping up to meet the challenge in proactive and effective ways. I wouldn't lay 100% of the blame on the Trump administration, but they've taken actions (e.g. the subject of this thread) that have undeniably damaged our ability to respond to crises of this sort, and their messaging at the highest level has been absolutely awful, totally disconnected with reality. But (unlike climate change) this is a case where reality is going to come knocking really soon, and in the final accounting we will see just how well or poorly the whole thing was managed. And you know what? I really do hope all the "hysteria" is a leftist conspiracy, or whatever. That would be great. I am rooting for Trump, Pence, and all the other goblins in his orbit to do a great job handling it. I really don't like Trump, but if he knocks this out of the park I'd even consider voting for him in the fall over whoever ends up bubbling up to the top of the Dem field, given the choices we seem to have before us at the moment. Somehow, though, I don't really see that happening.