Clearly china are the cause of the problem and the way they have lied about the virus has resulted in many deaths. That is not debatable.Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn
However, ifTrump is not sending aid to various states that would help save lives and people die because of that, then yes Trump is accountable for those deaths.
You don't "know" it either. You've presumably read something to that effect. I know you like to think you think for yourself but you don't, you just read and believe difference sources. But please provide your evidence
And I note you have "accidentally" missed the point of my post, which is that whether they did or not is irrelevant to whether World Leaders had some responsibility for dealing with the issue when it became apparent. Which of course they did.
No, I didn't accidentally miss anything. I picked one line from your post and responded to that, in the same way you did with mine.You don't "know" it either. You've presumably read something to that effect. I know you like to think you think for yourself but you don't, you just read and believe difference sources. But please provide your evidence
And I note you have "accidentally" missed the point of my post, which is that whether they did or not is irrelevant to whether World Leaders had some responsibility for dealing with the issue when it became apparent. Which of course they did.
Für eure Sicherheit
and in the M*il no doubt, which is the equivvalent of reading something on a bog wall and taking it as gospel
Mail-reading Tories like N____Q are the worst.
NOTE: The location of this post has been moved and the thread title (which was previously Wenger is Leaving) has been manipulated by a notorious pro-Wenger moderator. What was previously a message that contained no profanity and made a comment on a real life event has now been manipulated by a deliberately provocative title. An old and crude propaganda and censorship technique.
What is it with you and the Mail? Some people read the Mail, others the Guardian, others the Sun... it's all the same shit, with different flavoured spin. I don't "read" any newspapers, as in cover to cover. But I'll use any of them for direct quotes or verified data or anything that isn't subject to the bullshit contexts they apply. You don't become a Tory because you read an article from the Mail, just as you aren't automatically a communist if you glance at the Guardian.
Für eure Sicherheit
How's your little utopia in Brussels getting on? From here it looks like the whole thing has fallen to pieces.
Für eure Sicherheit
That's a more difficult one to deal with because it's currently a he said/ she said argument.
Trump's explanation is that as much aid as possible is being sent to as many states as possible. But some states have not distributed what has already been sent. In those cases, where distribution has not occurred, those states are being downgraded in favour of others because it has been assumed (if the supplies have not been fully distributed) the urgency is lower. Then you have the respective governors who are all prioritising their own state, rightly so, and when they don't get everything the ask for they complain as loudly as possible.
Information is generally coming through the sensationalist and doom mongering media, and that always has to be taken into account.
Common sense plays a part here too. Regardless of the pandemic, there's still an election coming up. So it would be an absurdly senseless (not to mention evil) act for the Trump to order politically motivated restrictions on certain states. Whereas the opposite is true for the Democrats and Democratic states. The worse they can make Trump look the more chance the cadaver they are running against him will have. Anyone who thinks that isn't happening is naive. Certainly (hopefully) not in all cases, but some. We've already seen politicians from both sides, who knew about this pandemic in advance, adjust their financial positions accordingly while keeping what they knew from the public. These are not normal human beings, which is why they have risen to positions of power in the first place.
Für eure Sicherheit
it's not about having a political slant, it's about:
- regularly inciting hatred and anger towards sections of society who are often blameless and unable to defend themselves eg people forced to claim benefits or immigrants
- blatantly lying and distorting the truth beyond all recognition e.g. the EU debate, climate change etc
- generally making people angry about things they don't need to be angry about but which the newspapers' owners/editors want people to be angry about
in contrast the guardian doesn't incite racial or any other type of hatred and is owned by a not-for-pofit trust, not private mini-dictators who are simply bending the truth to line their own pockets and pursue a right-wing agenda
I'll make an exception in the case of the FT which does a resaonable job of sticking to facts and truth overall
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
