@Paul4747 It was a typo. I fucked up.

@barjoe It's funnier the first way.

No, that's admitting defeat. Completely giving up on masks, social distancing, and any other measures to prevent the disease's spread- the sole idea they have is, let people catch it and then hope the voters aren't paying attention to how many of us fucking die. "We can't do anything to stop anyone catching this disease, we're just hoping like hell someone announces a vaccine by November 3."

Hell's bells, they can't even stop Trump and family catching it. They can't stop it racing through Pence's office. They can't protect themselves- how are they going to protect the nation?

@Paul4747 IMO, words matter, journalism that sticks to facts is better than those who inject unnecessary OPINION headline as fact.

@FearlessFly So, "Meadows Looks Forward To Nonexistent Vaccines as Solution to Pandemic", then? But that's much longer.

You're mistaking interpretation for opinion. It's an identical situation if he had said, for instance, "We're not going to control Afghanistan, we're going to control the rest of the Middle East." That would be signalling defeat by the Taliban.

@Paul4747 "You're mistaking interpretation for opinion" -- that's YOUR opinion.

@FearlessFly Actually a better metaphor would be, "We're pulling our troops out and just hoping to shoot down the next airliner they hijack." Which was, in fact, Trump's basic plan until General Mattis talked him out of it. I think I see a pattern emerging.

It's obviously too much hard work to wear masks and do social distancing, so they're counting on a magical vaccine instead. That's what Meadows admitted.

@Paul4747 "a better metaphor" -- moving the goalposts fallacy

"Which was, in fact, Trump's basic plan" -- evidence for this 'fact' ?

@FearlessFly Read "Fear" by Bob Woodward. Trump not only wanted to pull out of Afghanistan, but out of Europe and South Korea as well. It took several senior advisors to explain to him why having allies and having troops in place overseas protects America.

@Paul4747 Is that paraphrasing, your 'interpretation'/opinion (not 'facts' ), or a direct quote from the book?

Unless you mention (attribute) which is which, others would/should be skeptical.

@FearlessFly That's a summary of a recurring theme which crops up again and again; it would be onerous to quote an entire book. In particular, Trump repeatedly complained about the cost of maintaining troops in S. Korea and said he didn't understand why we were there, "they should be paying us". I believe it was James Mattis who finally replied, somewhat testily, "We're preventing World War 3."

@Paul4747
"Which was, in fact"
"summary of a recurring theme"

. . . words matter

@FearlessFly Yes, it was a fact. Don't try to parse my words and pretend you're proving a point.

@Paul4747 QUOTING your words is not parsing. You first claimed 'fact', subsequently claimed 'summary'. Your summary is not fact. My point (from the beginning is words matter, whether in (what I would call) a 'click-bait' headline or a 'summary' of a "non-fact".

@FearlessFly I related to you a fact.
I then summarized half of a book, which is where I learned said fact.

We learn facts by reading.

I could have written, "Trump ignored the advice of every economist in his Cabinet except for Peter Navarro and Wilbur Ross when he decided to impose tariffs." That is a fact. It's a summary of every documented account I've ever read about how Trump decided to impose tariffs. See how that works?

@Paul4747 IMO (see how that works ? ), you are now parsing your own words.

@FearlessFly Now I understand what the "Fly" part of your ID is about. You just keep buzzing on meaninglessly.

@Paul4747 . . . ad hominem fallacy