6 ms·

I think your statement is true, but I question whether the statement you are replying to is extraordinary given the track record this President and their admini

I think your statement is true, but I question whether the statement you are replying to is extraordinary given the track record this President and their administration have had since 2016. Speaking as someone from outside the US, it feels like this story is plausible. The fact is, they have displayed zero accountability for what they are doing with their stockpile. That is extraordinary in and of itself. Why aren't they transparent about who gets what? And what about the 500 ventilators that Colorado arranged to purchase, which were diverted by the Federal Government, which then provided 100 to Colorado, while criticizing the "blue" Governor, but praising the "red" senator, saying that the ventilators were the result of the senator's lobbying. That looks a lot like the exact thing being discussed here. https://www.denverpost.com/2020/04/08/colorado-coronavirus-ventilators-trump-gardner/ https://www.denverpost.com/2020/04/08/colorado-coronavirus-v... Evidence should still be demanded before action like lawsuits, impeachments, &c. are considered, but I suggest there's room to call this plausible speculation, rather than an extraordinary claim.

twomoretime 6y ago
>is extraordinary given the track record this President and their administration have had since 2016 Do you know how many "Trump admin seizes masks" and related corruption stories have been quietly retracted in the last month? I'm not saying the administration is innocent but it's nearly impossible to accurately evaluate what's going on because almost every media source puts spin on what should be primary source reporting. Even the daily covid briefings receive real time antagonistic headlines from outlets like CNN. Even in your own example >FEMA bought 500 ventilators out from under state, governor said last week So they were outbid at the last second. But all over the thread the sentiment is that they were "seized". Not the first time people's eagerness has opened them to false conclusions influenced by media.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- KarlKemp 6y ago
  > Do you know how many "Trump admin seizes masks" and related corruption stories have been quietly retracted in the last month? I assume you threw the "quietly" in there to be safe in case someone asks for examples? Well, I doubt you can do anything "quietly" on the internet these days. Have any archive.org links for stories that were later deleted?
  - twomoretime 6y ago
    >assume you threw the "quietly" in there to be safe in case someone asks for examples Why is any comment remotely construable as defending of the current administration automatically presumed to be made in bad faith? The typical internet response to anything related to Trump is completely irrational at this point. I used the term quietly to emphasize that the damage was done and outlets aren't exactly bending over backwards to broadcast their mistakes on their front pages. I post on mobile so no, it's not trivial to find examples. But you can dig around for the German reported seizure, for example, which turned out to be totally legitimate. Headlines talk about piracy when deep in the article you see that other nations are being outbid legitimately. Even if these dealings aren't intentional, there is still a problem when outlets suspend goof journalist practices, like vetting, in order to be the first to publish any information critical of the president. Edit: ironically, it's hard to find anything supportive of my point because even searching with quotes and plus signs, Google and DDG both refuse to return results that actually contain the words I'm searching for (correction, retraction).
    - justin66 6y ago
      Was a story from a credible source (if you prefer, any source) on the German seizure ever retracted? The story that was shared here on the German seizure did not contain enough information that a retraction would be necessary.
      - twomoretime 6y ago
        The only German stories I can find currently are misleading in a different way. The headlines use words like "piracy" and "seize" when the text indicates legitimate market bidding. In these cases my point is the same - this may not be wrong enough for a retraction but the misleading negative influence is still accomplished.
mywittyname 6y ago
Where there's smoke, there's fire. And there's a whole lot of smoke coming from a place that has has historically burned a lot.

twomoretime 6y ago

>is extraordinary given the track record this President and their administration have had since 2016 Do you know how many "Trump admin seizes masks" and related corruption stories have been quietly retracted in the last month? I'm not saying the administration is innocent but it's nearly impossible to accurately evaluate what's going on because almost every media source puts spin on what should be primary source reporting. Even the daily covid briefings receive real time antagonistic headlines from outlets like CNN. Even in your own example >FEMA bought 500 ventilators out from under state, governor said last week So they were outbid at the last second. But all over the thread the sentiment is that they were "seized". Not the first time people's eagerness has opened them to false conclusions influenced by media.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
KarlKemp 6y ago
> Do you know how many "Trump admin seizes masks" and related corruption stories have been quietly retracted in the last month? I assume you threw the "quietly" in there to be safe in case someone asks for examples? Well, I doubt you can do anything "quietly" on the internet these days. Have any archive.org links for stories that were later deleted?
- twomoretime 6y ago
  >assume you threw the "quietly" in there to be safe in case someone asks for examples Why is any comment remotely construable as defending of the current administration automatically presumed to be made in bad faith? The typical internet response to anything related to Trump is completely irrational at this point. I used the term quietly to emphasize that the damage was done and outlets aren't exactly bending over backwards to broadcast their mistakes on their front pages. I post on mobile so no, it's not trivial to find examples. But you can dig around for the German reported seizure, for example, which turned out to be totally legitimate. Headlines talk about piracy when deep in the article you see that other nations are being outbid legitimately. Even if these dealings aren't intentional, there is still a problem when outlets suspend goof journalist practices, like vetting, in order to be the first to publish any information critical of the president. Edit: ironically, it's hard to find anything supportive of my point because even searching with quotes and plus signs, Google and DDG both refuse to return results that actually contain the words I'm searching for (correction, retraction).
  - justin66 6y ago
    Was a story from a credible source (if you prefer, any source) on the German seizure ever retracted? The story that was shared here on the German seizure did not contain enough information that a retraction would be necessary.
    - twomoretime 6y ago
      The only German stories I can find currently are misleading in a different way. The headlines use words like "piracy" and "seize" when the text indicates legitimate market bidding. In these cases my point is the same - this may not be wrong enough for a retraction but the misleading negative influence is still accomplished.

mywittyname 6y ago

Where there's smoke, there's fire. And there's a whole lot of smoke coming from a place that has has historically burned a lot.