You repeated the same lie. Perhaps a little skepticism moving forward?

I was claiming the headline was false, fake news. I would also claim that what Trump said was true.

Democrats have distorted and politicized coronavirus in terms of lying about the response and giving us a pitiful panic among the fearful (see Tim Wood's response here).

AP FACT CHECK: Democrats distort coronavirus readiness

Do you ever get tired of Trump's lies and those of his yes-men and women?

I get tired of you parroting whatever the DNC wants you to. I tire of you lamenting a dystopian future that never arrives. How can you look at yourself in a mirror?

Just to be clear, I believe Trump is claiming that criticisms to his administration’s actions surrounding the issue (cuts to CDC funding etc.) is a hoax, or something like that, and not that the virus itself is a hoax.

That’s right. He did not say Coronavirus is Democrats' 'new hoax'. So why would the NYT say that?

But yes, the Democrats have politicized the issue. They repeatedly accused Pompeo of not doing enough about it during a testimony on the Iran strike. Trump is right.

What's the point here? Is the argument something like... some people do not keep their word, therefore Trump can pull out of any and all agreements that he chooses to?

The point is it isn’t wrong to expect other countries to hold up their end of the bargain.

In the posted video, Trump says “and this is their new hoax.” If you’re too brainwashed to believe that he wasn’t referring to Democrats and the coronavirus, well, then there’s little chance of me opening you eyes.

Did he or did he not say Coronavirus is the Democrat’s new hoax?

19 NATO members that have not met the 2% GDP spending goal set at the 2014 NATO summit, which was before Trump arrived. So were they lying?

Who is this hapless demographic that gets duped by Facebook/social media content and ads? Are there really people that look at this and go "Ah, that's gotta be true because I saw it on Facebook!". I guess there is, but I'm wondering how ignorant one must really want to be to believe everything because it's on social media. I'm imagining thousands of little old ladies that have been introduced to social media and don't know that anyone can post anything, and they are constantly saying "Oh my!". It just doesn't make sense who is being manipulated whether by foreign or internal trolls.

No one. Elections don’t occur on social media.

What we’re seeing is the democratization of information. People no longer run to the gatekeepers of the media, and that scares them. Their fight against “fake news” is little different than China’s fight against “fake news” nearly a decade ago, which ultimately led to more censorship and state control.

Maybe the rest of the world should get used to paying their fair share. Working together requires partnerships, not dependants.

The title reads:

“Donald Trump: Coronavirus is Democrats' 'new hoax'”

I image that most Trump supporters have poor reading comprehension, or just tend to see what they want to see.

Did trump say that? No. But anti-Trumpers like to believe what they’re told. Trump has taken drastic measures a while ago, long before Democrats started bleating about their Coronavirus fears.

Maybe their countries are just used to getting a free ride, bleeding America dry, and like any addict is getting frustrated that their supply is dwindling.

Right in the title of the New York Times video.

And here I thought it was the scientists predicting climate catastrophe!

Just like they did in the 70's and 80's. Still waiting, I suppose.

Trump never said the Coronavirus is a hoax. But I guess the Times has a low opinion of its readers.

The tentative end of America’s longest war is on the horizon.

U.S.-Taliban sign landmark agreement in bid to end America's longest war

This is what happens when you give Trump the nuclear codes.

Is this a version of what you will tell your doc when he informs you that you have Stage 3 cancer?

"Well, a voodoo priest and a gypsy with a crystal ball told me before that I would die and they were wrong, so on that basis I will proceed with caution regarding fact-checked medical advice."

Is that how you treat all politicians, like a doctor giving medical advice?

So you would actually prefer an apocalypse if it meant lowering taxes and regulations?

I think of all the times people have predicted an apocalypse and their claims were never realized. People cannot predict the future. So when someone bursts in in claiming we need to level entire industries, freedoms, traditions to save the future, we should proceed wth caution.

I’m not so certain I’d go so far as anarchism, but I tend in that direction. Definitely anti-statist. Mostly my guiding principle is liberty and freedom when it comes to politics, so I err on the side of personal responsibility rather than government coercion.

Im an American expatriate living in the Commonwealth.

I would suggest education and personal responsibility would lead to better results than technocratic tinkering with entire economies and industries. I fear that giving the government that much power is not worth the loss of freedom and gains in taxation, even if it were to achieve its goal of saving us from a coming apocalypse.

What do you mean by this?

I mean that others could not do what Trump is doing under this pressure, and I accused those who write in British English of wanting Sanders to become US president because Trump makes their own leaders look bad.

Imagine getting upset because Sanders acknowledged some objectively good things Cuba has done. Very American to condemn other states as authoritarian while the US has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world.

It’s like pointing out Hitler made good roads, and therefor “it’s unfair to simply say everything is bad“. It’s just a stupid comment.

Then again, I’m not sure why everyone is upset about it.

I can respect the libertarian principle that less is best for government, even though I don't embrace it. But where collective action is needed, like climate change in particular, there is no hope for this being solved by a free market or by individuals voluntarily choosing to behave nobly.

If you set aside your belief that action is unnecessary, and accept the premise that action IS needed (hypothetically), would you agree?

Well, we’ve all been raised to believe the government will fix our problems, so it’s probably true that people will not collectively mobilize until it is too late. They would demand governments do something before they do it themselves. If we were to educate the opposite—that government does not fix our problems and only exacerbate them—I think it would be otherwise. But I still hope innovation will lead us to less pollution and cleaner water and I thInk the free market is best equipped to solve those problems than any government.

What about you? Will the governments of the world be our hero in the battle against climate change?

By opposing any Green New Deal, does that mean you oppose any government interventiions that are aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions?

If yes, do you really believe the free market can solve the problem?
If no, then what sort of interventions do you favor?

Well, I’d go further and say I oppose government intervention in general. I don’t think we need it to tackle climate change. I do believe that humans can get together and cooperate to solve problems without the coercive force of the government.

What’s stopping you from protecting the environment, providing solutions and providing the services you demand of government? What’s stopping you from mobilizing your countrymen to some form of action? Only your own inactivity. So I think it’s more a matter of self-interest and self-concern to demand others fund what you yourself refuse to do. And that you would hand off our freedom so you can continue to do nothing and maintain a peace of mind is what irks me, to say the least.

If there is no socialism in Bernie then why does he call himself a democratic socialist? It boggles the mind. He's either wrong or he's a socialist. So which is it? And adding "democratic" to the term socialism doesn’t make me feel any better, any more than adding “democratic” to the People's Republic of Korea.

But call Bernie what you want. I’ve already stated his policies reek of the big government, high-tax reforms we’ve been getting for the better part of a century.

I think swinging the country in the direction of a new New Deal is a very smart choice and very much needed, after years of neoliberal policy -- the results we see all around us. If you really feel we're (the working and middle classes) better off now than we were in the 50s and 60s under New Deal policies, that's a debate worth having.

Why would we need another New Deal if the first one was so great? The government’s power was greatly increased and that has not subsided. We still have social security, Fannie Mae, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the National Labor Relations Board, federal agricultural subsidies.

You don’t need a government to phase-out an industry or to make it better or to innovate. I think change is welcome, just not from the rule of a government. Your cradle to the grave statism will only stifle your own innovation.

I oppose any Green New Deal because it is uniquely authoritarian and statist. At the outset I disagree with the premise that “it is the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal”. What they want is the government to seize control of the economy and our very livelihoods, level entire industries and replace them with new ones.

I think they could get away with updating electrical grids and other infrastructure, but in the Green New Deal (at least in the US) they sneak in such things as free education, job guarantees, upgrades to all buildings, and the typical classism. The concept of “national mobilization” has vanguardism written all over it.

Sooner or later a community is going to oppose such measures. What then?

Why does it only seem to be right-wing manchildren who use this new slang?

Why is it only pantywaists who are offended by it?

Bernie is an avowed socialist. Straight from the horse’s mouth. That was my only point. You don’t have to look at the countless other leaders and states who have claimed the same, but because there is always a trail of death and tyranny behind them should at least be cause for scepticism when someone once again picks up the mantle. I doubt your equivocations would occur if Bernie called himself a fascist, for instance.

God you're pathetic.

Love the Limbaugh talking points, though.

There’s no need to get salty, comrade.

Once again, only half the story. Plenty of European countries that have less strong unions do use minimum wage laws and they are also considered socially democratic.

Denmark and Sweden have very strong unions with high membership and the collective employment agreements contain minimum wages that are binding on all employees regardless of union membership. Companies cannot go around these unions. So even these countries have effective minimum wages they simply come about in a different way.

Denmark does have minimum wage laws for foreign employees.

Collective bargaining isn’t the same as government-enforced minimum wage laws, is it?

You did, by linking Sanders' proposals with "socialism," and going on to say that "socialism" never works. So either Sanders' proposals are more in line with China and India, or else they're like Denmark and Sweden and thus NOT socialism.

Your entire worldview reeks of Cold War paranoia.

You forgot Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Cambodia, many of which are failed states or in the process of failing. Iraq, Sudan, Libya. Syria. It’s true that China has developed an economically-viable brand of Socialism, but it’s too totalitarian and mercantilist to last.

Ohh, I see. Great -- so then Bernie's policies aren't socialism either. Good to know. So you shouldn't have a problem bringing these clearly non-socialist countries' policies to the US.

No, I do have a problem bringing those policies to the US. But mostly I have a problem with Bernie’s statist policies, which differ in many respect to the countries he holds as exemplars. The corporate tax rates in Denmark or Sweden are not that high, but Bernie wants to raise it to 35%. Denmark and Sweden don’t have government-mandated minimum wage; Bernie wants government-mandated minimum wage. His Green New Deal is the thing nightmares are made out of.

Do you still contend that “Denmark and Sweden (among others) are failed states”?

I never even hinted at such proposition.

Dictionaries record usage, not how a word should be defined.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Definition

But my definition nonetheless coincides with the first one.

it’s true, the word has little meaning anymore.

So tell us: how are you defining "socialism"? And please inform us why Denmark and Sweden (among others) are failed states.

I always use the common definition: social control of the means of production. A socialist state is a state that explicitly seeks to achieve this end. Here’s a list of such states:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states

The Nordic system is not socialist. Sweden, for example, had to introduce drastic austerity measures and neoliberal reforms during the 90s to get the economy it has today.

Another obstructionist injunction overturned.

Court rules in favor of Trump in ‘sanctuary cities’ grant fight

The nation-wide injunction has become a tool of the judiciary in order to stifle Trump’s agenda, so it’s nice to see them overturned in higher courts.

Federal judges have moved more than three dozen times in three years to temporarily prohibit enforcement of Trump policies that were challenged before them. That contrasts with about 20 for Barack Obama and even fewer for George W. Bush, both of whom served eight years, according to senators and witnesses at the hearing.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/senators-grapple-with-nationwide-injunctions

It’s hard to believe that even with all this obstruction—constant investigations, impeachment’s, injunctions—President Trump is delivering. It’s no wonder Euros want a Sanders presidency: their own hapless, progressive leaders cannot compete in the same world as the Trump administration.

American and European conservatives differ in many respects. They are often more liberal in the classical sense, more Christian, more republican, more individualistic, less beholden to monarchy and the gentry, for example. Bernie’s brand of socialism is more social democratic, though the terms are already so watered down and abused to be of any use.

It’s a common argument to pretend welfare states are socialist, and to pretend tax-payer funded services are the same. But it was Bismarck, a conservative anti-socialist, who instituted the first social health insurance system. And he arguably did it in spite of socialism. As for post offices, they became tax-funded under Charles 1st, long before socialism was a fart in someone’s mind. Taxes have been a part of human life since time immemorial.

I don’t doubt Bernie’s sense of justice, but being against wars and bigotry is easy. What I worry about is how he plans to implement his policies and the costs. It’s true, his policies nowadays are definitely different than his more radical days when he wanted to nationalize everything, but it still reeks of the big government, high-tax reforms we’ve been getting for the better part of a century.

No he hasn’t. He’s an avowed socialist. One can simply observe the failed states of that ideology throughout history.

Bernie is definitely my choice. I think he means well. I think his election would serve as a good lesson to Americans who have their minds set on socialism and a welfare state.