Fake News. The national security counsel was restructured in 2018. The mission and objectives related to pandemic and bio weapon response have not changed in the slightest. This snopes site is working under a leftist agenda, and I encourage anyone with an interest in this assertion to research it back far enough to obtain proper context.
I assume that Snopes Inc doesn't want an agenda -- but that many writers at Snopes are anti-Trump. To support your claim, what information or sources can you provide that an open minded person would find plausible?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
Your response refers to the mission of the CDC. That's a misdirect. No one said that the mission has changed. What the article states is that "the Trump administration axed the executive branch team responsible for coordinating a response to a pandemic and did not replace it"
Also, every budget that Trump has proposed has cut CDC funding and the current proposal is to cut it by 16%. Fortunately Congress has interceded every time.
These are verifiable facts, not opinions.
The term "fake news" used to annoy me, until I realize that it always means "a truth disliked by Trump / his minions". (Minion: "a follower or underling of a powerful person, especially a servile or unimportant one"). I've been at peace with the phrase ever since, having a better understanding of the person who used the phrase and why they used it.
No. It's a shared mission. Both the NSC and CDC have significant national security crossover. And I would encourage curious people to research the reasoning behind some of the proposed CDC budget reductions.
I can see how the term "fake news" annoys certain people as I'm sure it invokes a certain discomfort in knowing that it refers to the immoral fabrications and contextual transformations needed to maintain mass discontent with one individual person. It's got to make at least some of its creators and consumers feel dirty.
> it refers to the immoral fabrications and contextual transformations needed to maintain mass discontent with one individual person.
It's a bit amazing to me that we live in the same reality.
I can listen to Trump speak for perhaps 30 seconds because it's transparently in some new way that he is malignantly narcissistic, corrupt, and proudly uninformed about every subject he opines about. No "fake news" needed.
No one should be surprised by this, especially not enough to claim it as "fake news". Its entirely consistent with the administration's approach to the role of government. Unfortunately it took a crisis like this to make clear a good reason why we need large government for some things.
23 comments
[ 1.7 ms ] story [ 66.3 ms ] threadThey can't tell satire from news.
They keep[1] fact-checking[2] satire[3], published a self-congratulatory excuse[4], and occasionally dip their toes in fact-checking memes[5].
Good laugh, not much trust in their integrity over making a quick buck.
--
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/03/us/snopes-babylon-bee.htm...
[2] https://reason.com/podcast/christian-satire-site-the-babylon...
[3] https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-fact-checker-declares-war-on-...
[4] https://www.snopes.com/news/2019/08/16/readers-think-satire-...
[5] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/your-city-on-socialism/
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
Also, every budget that Trump has proposed has cut CDC funding and the current proposal is to cut it by 16%. Fortunately Congress has interceded every time.
These are verifiable facts, not opinions.
The term "fake news" used to annoy me, until I realize that it always means "a truth disliked by Trump / his minions". (Minion: "a follower or underling of a powerful person, especially a servile or unimportant one"). I've been at peace with the phrase ever since, having a better understanding of the person who used the phrase and why they used it.
I can see how the term "fake news" annoys certain people as I'm sure it invokes a certain discomfort in knowing that it refers to the immoral fabrications and contextual transformations needed to maintain mass discontent with one individual person. It's got to make at least some of its creators and consumers feel dirty.
It's a bit amazing to me that we live in the same reality.
I can listen to Trump speak for perhaps 30 seconds because it's transparently in some new way that he is malignantly narcissistic, corrupt, and proudly uninformed about every subject he opines about. No "fake news" needed.
And I've felt the same way about other presidents, so we've been in the same boat.
Let me guess - all of those presidents have been Democrats?