Nancy Pelosi:
"The president is asking people to inject Lysol into their lungs"

Maybe she will take his advice.

---

Nancy Pelosi:
"The president is asking people to inject Lysol into their lungs"

Both Trump and Pelosi can be dumb.

---

Well, you're standing by something that is wrong. Transcript:

Donald Trump: (29:46)
A question that probably some of you are thinking of if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposedly we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you’re going to test that too. Sounds interesting, right? And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we’ll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute. That’s pretty powerful.

Donald Trump: (34:22) [crosstalk 00:34:22] It wouldn’t be through injections, [inaudible 00:34:25] almost a cleaning and sterilization of an area. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t work, but it certainly has a big affect if it’s on a stationary object


Nothing in there seems to be a recommendation to mainline Lysol, but he can see Russia from his porch or something.

What is just as dumb as the idea of using disinfectant to sterilize the inside of a body is the idea that we can find out by just checking on it.

How is any scientific advancement made? It's done by trial and error. You come up with an idea and figure out how to do it. He said maybe there is a way we can figure out a way to disinfect the inside of the body.


It's going to be hilarious when someone finds a way to do it. I hope they mention Trump as their inspiration and all liberals refuse treatment.

---

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

This coronavirus infects human lung tissue and human kidney tissue. 
Not the blood. C'mon. The blood itself could be helped by the UV light, but it's not going to carry photons to the lungs and kidneys as if they were molecules of oxygen...
am I the only one here who paid attention in 7th grade biology?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I trust doctors and specialists. As JIB so succinctly put, Trump is neither.

And yet all this hoopla about Trump making comments and asking questions of his clinicians about something that is within the realm of scientific possibility. Sad.

Did you see the facial expression and body language displayed by Dr. Brix when Trump proposed these hair brained ideas?

What is sad is he isn't bringing up these questions outside of his daily "briefings". He's spitballing while updating concerned citizens about the status of a pandemic.

But what is very sad is the lengths to which you and your fellow Trumpettes will go to defend your Unclothed Emperor, then get thrown under the bus by said Unclothed Emperor. Because if he was just sincerely asking his clinicians about something that may be within the realm of scientific possibility, why did he say the following when asked about his comments later...

I was asking a question sarcastically to reporters like you just to see what would happen,” Trump said.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

This coronavirus infects human lung tissue and human kidney tissue. 
Not the blood. C'mon. The blood itself could be helped by the UV light, but it's not going to carry photons to the lungs and kidneys as if they were molecules of oxygen...
am I the only one here who paid attention in 7th grade biology?

Not one person suggested this as a one-off cure. Gee, if only there was a 'treatment' for the blood product, then have it circulated back into the body. This would decrease the virus severity and give the body a chance to build enough antibodies towards immunity. Certain 7th-grade biology didn't touch on hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis? You know, that useless treatment of scrubbing blood product of waste? I mean, since the kidney tissue doesn't function properly, the treatment must be a huge waste of time since it isn't a cure. If only such a thing existed for the lungs... like Hemolung Dialysis. Would be neato if they could adapt it to purify localized lung product. It would be a hell of a thing to be used in concert with antiserum or purified antibodies as a coronavirus treatment. Damn 6th-grade biology failing me.

Hey look, another hairbrained filter idea...https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-human-os/biomedical/devices/blood-filtration-tech-removes-harmful-cytokines-covid19-patients

---

This coronavirus infects human lung tissue and human kidney tissue. 
Not the blood. C'mon. The blood itself could be helped by the UV light, but it's not going to carry photons to the lungs and kidneys as if they were molecules of oxygen...
am I the only one here who paid attention in 7th grade biology?

Not one person suggested this as a one-off cure. Gee, if only there was a 'treatment' for the blood product, then have it circulated back into the body. This would decrease the virus severity and give the body a chance to build enough antibodies towards immunity. Certain 7th-grade biology didn't touch on hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis? You know, that useless treatment of scrubbing blood product of waste? I mean, since the kidney tissue doesn't function properly, the treatment must be a huge waste of time since it isn't a cure. If only such a thing existed for the lungs... like Hemolung Dialysis. Would be neato if they could adapt it to purify localized lung product. It would be a hell of a thing to be used in concert with antiserum or purified antibodies as a coronavirus treatment. Damn 6th-grade biology failing me.

Hey look, another hairbrained filter idea...https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-human-os/biomedical/devices/blood-filtration-tech-removes-harmful-cytokines-covid19-patients

Lung fluid is much more viscous than blood and there is no natural process continuously circulating it around the lungs. In fact, when there is an excess of fluid in the lungs, medical science has great difficulty removing it safely.  But according to you they should have no problem removing some, hitting it with light, and putting it back.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

There are multiple instances of cognitive bias going on. Trump speaks poorly. Everyone knows this. To try to defend his statement logically is giving too much credit to Trump. Can we agree that Trump is a narcissist with a big ego? He doesn't need to paraphrase what was just said by the doctors, but he does that because he believes that's what he's supposed to do. I will even accept that he wants to give people hope, but even if we accept that motive, I still think there's an underlying need to feed his ego (that he is the hope-giver). So, because he's inarticulate and probably only paid attention half-way, he gets up there to give hope and bumbles through his synopsis. He chose his words poorly. End of story. As the President, he needs to try to do better. That's where the narrative needs to stop and start. If, due to an overabundance of caution, his opponents feel the need to suggest that people should avoid trying this for themselves, go for it.

Furthermore, I take issue with Trump claiming it was sarcasm. It offends me. I personally didn't think what he said originally was a big deal. When I heard it, I assumed he was talking about an aerosolized spray that one could shoot into their lungs, but knew immediately this was going to be turned into a meme. His supporters did come to his defense, though. This is not because the statement is an inherently good statement, but because they don't believe he has bad intentions (which I don't, either). For this reason, they attempted to make sense out of a poorly constructed series of questions. Then Trump walks it back the next day. He probably realized it was unrealistic to expect them to make such a spray, or someone gave him clarity as to why that wouldn't help with the virus. Instead of admitting it was poorly phrased or he was just spitballing, he walked it back. That does leave his supporters dangling in the wind. Aside from throwing them under the bus, it was disingenuous. He should be called out for it.

THAT SAID, the democratic response to this has been insane. I would argue that the headlines and talking points have been far more damaging that anything Trump actually said. Pelosi wasn't being sarcastic when she said Trump suggested people should treat themselves with Lysol. He didn't say anything remotely close to that. There are multiple examples of bad journalism in response to this as well. Look at this opener to a politico article: "President Donald Trump’s suggestion that Americans should inject themselves with household disinfectants as a coronavirus remedy provoked an apparently universal rebuke Friday..." What? He never even got close to suggesting this. There are countless headlines and other things that made it look like he actually suggested that.

It is dangerous and irresponsible to rephrase what actually happened. If people don't trust the media or democratic politicians (which some don't), and believe that the media wants to attack Trump (which some do), which do you think played a bigger role in provoking the idiots to spray lysol into their lungs?

Trump asked a question. That was it. He asked if it could be tested. No one should interpret that as do experiments at home.

Gabe, I find you to be relatively reasonable. I can concede he should have choose his words better. I can concede he should probably talk less. I concede he hung his supporters out to dry. Can you concede that this has been largely overblown by the media and used as a political attack ad? Can you concede that there is a significant portion of the media and democratic politicians that are outright lying about what happened?

---

Because if he was just sincerely asking his clinicians about something that may be within the realm of scientific possibility, why did he say the following when asked about his comments later...

I was asking a question sarcastically to reporters like you just to see what would happen,” Trump said.

Maybe he wanted to trigger you twice.

---

It is dangerous and irresponsible to rephrase what actually happened. If people don't trust the media or democratic politicians (which some don't), and believe that the media wants to attack Trump (which some do), which do you think played a bigger role in provoking the idiots to spray lysol into their lungs?

^^^^^ This.

And we should note that Twitter CEO Jack Doyle just proposed a policy to "rephrase" tweets from "world leaders".

---

Not one person suggested this as a one-off cure. Gee, if only there was a 'treatment' for the blood product, then have it circulated back into the body. This would decrease the virus severity and give the body a chance to build enough antibodies towards immunity. Certain 7th-grade biology didn't touch on hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis? You know, that useless treatment of scrubbing blood product of waste? I mean, since the kidney tissue doesn't function properly, the treatment must be a huge waste of time since it isn't a cure. If only such a thing existed for the lungs... like Hemolung Dialysis. Would be neato if they could adapt it to purify localized lung product. It would be a hell of a thing to be used in concert with antiserum or purified antibodies as a coronavirus treatment. Damn 6th-grade biology failing me.

Hey look, another hairbrained filter idea...https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-human-os/biomedical/devices/blood-filtration-tech-removes-harmful-cytokines-covid19-patients

Lung fluid is much more viscous than blood and there is no natural process continuously circulating it around the lungs. In fact, when there is an excess of fluid in the lungs, medical science has great difficulty removing it safely.  But according to you they should have no problem removing some, hitting it with light, and putting it back.

Feel free to research with your 7th-grade biology before popping off. I even made it easier for you by giving you a head start. FYI, pleural effusion or pulmonary edema is not related to blood circulation. I could have swore the pulmonary arteries, vein, and capillaries along with bronchial arteries, and veins were the natural process continuously circulating/carrying deoxygenated and oxygenated blood to and from the lungs? Do you have gills? Dang, the scientific community has been lied to! LOL

---

There are multiple instances of cognitive bias going on. Trump speaks poorly. Everyone knows this. To try to defend his statement logically is giving too much credit to Trump. Can we agree that Trump is a narcissist with a big ego? He doesn't need to paraphrase what was just said by the doctors, but he does that because he believes that's what he's supposed to do. I will even accept that he wants to give people hope, but even if we accept that motive, I still think there's an underlying need to feed his ego (that he is the hope-giver). So, because he's inarticulate and probably only paid attention half-way, he gets up there to give hope and bumbles through his synopsis. He chose his words poorly. End of story. As the President, he needs to try to do better. That's where the narrative needs to stop and start. If, due to an overabundance of caution, his opponents feel the need to suggest that people should avoid trying this for themselves, go for it.

Furthermore, I take issue with Trump claiming it was sarcasm. It offends me. I personally didn't think what he said originally was a big deal. When I heard it, I assumed he was talking about an aerosolized spray that one could shoot into their lungs, but knew immediately this was going to be turned into a meme. His supporters did come to his defense, though. This is not because the statement is an inherently good statement, but because they don't believe he has bad intentions (which I don't, either). For this reason, they attempted to make sense out of a poorly constructed series of questions. Then Trump walks it back the next day. He probably realized it was unrealistic to expect them to make such a spray, or someone gave him clarity as to why that wouldn't help with the virus. Instead of admitting it was poorly phrased or he was just spitballing, he walked it back. That does leave his supporters dangling in the wind. Aside from throwing them under the bus, it was disingenuous. He should be called out for it.

THAT SAID, the democratic response to this has been insane. I would argue that the headlines and talking points have been far more damaging that anything Trump actually said. Pelosi wasn't being sarcastic when she said Trump suggested people should treat themselves with Lysol. He didn't say anything remotely close to that. There are multiple examples of bad journalism in response to this as well. Look at this opener to a politico article: "President Donald Trump’s suggestion that Americans should inject themselves with household disinfectants as a coronavirus remedy provoked an apparently universal rebuke Friday..." What? He never even got close to suggesting this. There are countless headlines and other things that made it look like he actually suggested that.

It is dangerous and irresponsible to rephrase what actually happened. If people don't trust the media or democratic politicians (which some don't), and believe that the media wants to attack Trump (which some do), which do you think played a bigger role in provoking the idiots to spray lysol into their lungs?

Trump asked a question. That was it. He asked if it could be tested. No one should interpret that as do experiments at home.

Gabe, I find you to be relatively reasonable. I can concede he should have choose his words better. I can concede he should probably talk less. I concede he  hung his supporters out to dry. Can you concede that this has been largely overblown by the media and used as a political attack ad? Can you concede that there is a significant portion of the media and democratic politicians that are outright lying about what happened?

+1, I agree with this proposition.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

There are multiple instances of cognitive bias going on. Trump speaks poorly. Everyone knows this. To try to defend his statement logically is giving too much credit to Trump. Can we agree that Trump is a narcissist with a big ego? He doesn't need to paraphrase what was just said by the doctors, but he does that because he believes that's what he's supposed to do. I will even accept that he wants to give people hope, but even if we accept that motive, I still think there's an underlying need to feed his ego (that he is the hope-giver). So, because he's inarticulate and probably only paid attention half-way, he gets up there to give hope and bumbles through his synopsis. He chose his words poorly. End of story. As the President, he needs to try to do better. That's where the narrative needs to stop and start. If, due to an overabundance of caution, his opponents feel the need to suggest that people should avoid trying this for themselves, go for it.

Furthermore, I take issue with Trump claiming it was sarcasm. It offends me. I personally didn't think what he said originally was a big deal. When I heard it, I assumed he was talking about an aerosolized spray that one could shoot into their lungs, but knew immediately this was going to be turned into a meme. His supporters did come to his defense, though. This is not because the statement is an inherently good statement, but because they don't believe he has bad intentions (which I don't, either). For this reason, they attempted to make sense out of a poorly constructed series of questions. Then Trump walks it back the next day. He probably realized it was unrealistic to expect them to make such a spray, or someone gave him clarity as to why that wouldn't help with the virus. Instead of admitting it was poorly phrased or he was just spitballing, he walked it back. That does leave his supporters dangling in the wind. Aside from throwing them under the bus, it was disingenuous. He should be called out for it.

THAT SAID, the democratic response to this has been insane. I would argue that the headlines and talking points have been far more damaging that anything Trump actually said. Pelosi wasn't being sarcastic when she said Trump suggested people should treat themselves with Lysol. He didn't say anything remotely close to that. There are multiple examples of bad journalism in response to this as well. Look at this opener to a politico article: "President Donald Trump’s suggestion that Americans should inject themselves with household disinfectants as a coronavirus remedy provoked an apparently universal rebuke Friday..." What? He never even got close to suggesting this. There are countless headlines and other things that made it look like he actually suggested that.

It is dangerous and irresponsible to rephrase what actually happened. If people don't trust the media or democratic politicians (which some don't), and believe that the media wants to attack Trump (which some do), which do you think played a bigger role in provoking the idiots to spray lysol into their lungs?

Trump asked a question. That was it. He asked if it could be tested. No one should interpret that as do experiments at home.

Gabe, I find you to be relatively reasonable. I can concede he should have choose his words better. I can concede he should probably talk less. I concede he  hung his supporters out to dry. Can you concede that this has been largely overblown by the media and used as a political attack ad? Can you concede that there is a significant portion of the media and democratic politicians that are outright lying about what happened?

I appreciate that and I believe there are bastions of reasonable thought to be found here & there among this board (myself not included). 

I agree with just about everything you said and yes, I do agree that when the media (take whatever role you want in MSM) see something that might generate controversy and viewership, they jump all over it. Anyone remember Fox losing its collective mind over the beige suit or the selfie stick? It's what the news is. Politicians in general are much the same. Find me a politician you trust and I'll sell you oceanfront property in Montana. I also agree that paraphrasing is the new norm in news. 

That being said, this is a pattern for Trump - the word-salad-my-way-through-a-thought, followed by an "I don't know, but it's interesting. I'm just saying." I think he could easily get re-elected without the daily briefings, which I believe, because of crap like what happened, have not helped him. If I'm an independent, do I want to have a president who spitballs elementary school-level ideas during a health/economic crisis while simultaneously promising everything is gonna be better than it ever was? One who's ego can't hold up to the likes of critique by someone as lame as Piers Morgan? Who seemingly gets his talking points from TV? Who talks about ratings when thousands of American citizens are dying every day? If you assume that voters aren't asking themselves these questions, including republicans, I don't know what to tell you...especially when everyone's financial portfolios are in the middle of a skydive. 

My Father in-law and I were talking about it last night and he tends to think that most presidents don't get treated well in general, and the problem with Trump is that while press reporters are trying to "bait" him with loaded questions, he simply takes said bait and wash, rinse, repeat. Extrapolating that behavior worries me.

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

Lung fluid is much more viscous than blood and there is no natural process continuously circulating it around the lungs. In fact, when there is an excess of fluid in the lungs, medical science has great difficulty removing it safely.  But according to you they should have no problem removing some, hitting it with light, and putting it back.

Feel free to research with your 7th-grade biology before popping off. I even made it easier for you by giving you a head start. FYI, pleural effusion or pulmonary edema is not related to blood circulation. I could have swore the pulmonary arteries, vein, and capillaries along with bronchial arteries, and veins were the natural process continuously circulating/carrying deoxygenated and oxygenated blood to and from the lungs? Do you have gills? Dang, the scientific community has been lied to! LOL

You're telling me stuff I already know.
Once again you confuse my derisive sarcasm for ignorance.
You assume that because somebody disagrees with you, they must know less than you.
The good news, for you, is that this rebuke will also fail to hit home and you can continue imagining that you know more than me or have something to teach me or anyone else who graduated high school on this subject.
Come on. What are you thinking? You think they can get optical fiber into the capillaries of the lungs?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Who do you trust to rebuild the economy?
The guy who built it?
or the guy whose last real job was watching "roaches" play with his leg hair?

---

There are multiple instances of cognitive bias going on. Trump speaks poorly. Everyone knows this. To try to defend his statement logically is giving too much credit to Trump. Can we agree that Trump is a narcissist with a big ego? He doesn't need to paraphrase what was just said by the doctors, but he does that because he believes that's what he's supposed to do. I will even accept that he wants to give people hope, but even if we accept that motive, I still think there's an underlying need to feed his ego (that he is the hope-giver). So, because he's inarticulate and probably only paid attention half-way, he gets up there to give hope and bumbles through his synopsis. He chose his words poorly. End of story. As the President, he needs to try to do better. That's where the narrative needs to stop and start. If, due to an overabundance of caution, his opponents feel the need to suggest that people should avoid trying this for themselves, go for it.

Furthermore, I take issue with Trump claiming it was sarcasm. It offends me. I personally didn't think what he said originally was a big deal. When I heard it, I assumed he was talking about an aerosolized spray that one could shoot into their lungs, but knew immediately this was going to be turned into a meme. His supporters did come to his defense, though. This is not because the statement is an inherently good statement, but because they don't believe he has bad intentions (which I don't, either). For this reason, they attempted to make sense out of a poorly constructed series of questions. Then Trump walks it back the next day. He probably realized it was unrealistic to expect them to make such a spray, or someone gave him clarity as to why that wouldn't help with the virus. Instead of admitting it was poorly phrased or he was just spitballing, he walked it back. That does leave his supporters dangling in the wind. Aside from throwing them under the bus, it was disingenuous. He should be called out for it.

THAT SAID, the democratic response to this has been insane. I would argue that the headlines and talking points have been far more damaging that anything Trump actually said. Pelosi wasn't being sarcastic when she said Trump suggested people should treat themselves with Lysol. He didn't say anything remotely close to that. There are multiple examples of bad journalism in response to this as well. Look at this opener to a politico article: "President Donald Trump’s suggestion that Americans should inject themselves with household disinfectants as a coronavirus remedy provoked an apparently universal rebuke Friday..." What? He never even got close to suggesting this. There are countless headlines and other things that made it look like he actually suggested that.

It is dangerous and irresponsible to rephrase what actually happened. If people don't trust the media or democratic politicians (which some don't), and believe that the media wants to attack Trump (which some do), which do you think played a bigger role in provoking the idiots to spray lysol into their lungs?

Trump asked a question. That was it. He asked if it could be tested. No one should interpret that as do experiments at home.

Gabe, I find you to be relatively reasonable. I can concede he should have choose his words better. I can concede he should probably talk less. I concede he  hung his supporters out to dry. Can you concede that this has been largely overblown by the media and used as a political attack ad? Can you concede that there is a significant portion of the media and democratic politicians that are outright lying about what happened?

You're obviously a smart person with good intentions.
I hear you trying to be fair about this.
But you're trying too hard, in my opinion.
You said that the Democrats are insane.  And in many ways they are, of course. But how are they insane for this?
Is there any comment that a prominent Democrat or prominent member of the left-wing media could have made about Trump's lung disinfectant press conference, that would have you saying, "oh, they're being reasonable for once."
Think about it.
Imagine Nancy Pelosi saying anything else. Imagine yourself watching the video of her saying it and reading the article about it, and then imagine yourself saying,  "she's not insane right now, she's being reasonable."
If you can think of many possible individual answers, then, yes, you're being fair. If you can't think of any, you're not, and you can stop trying to perform at it.

---

Trump: "2 + 2 = 5"
B2Hibry: "actually, and I have military experience to back this up, it does equal five sometimes."
Pelosi: "Trump just can't stop saying incorrect things."
Last42min: "obviously 2 + 2 is not 5, but Pelosi is just sowing discord and making everybody mistrust their duly elected leaders. I think both sides are bad."

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

There are multiple instances of cognitive bias going on. Trump speaks poorly. Everyone knows this. To try to defend his statement logically is giving too much credit to Trump. Can we agree that Trump is a narcissist with a big ego? He doesn't need to paraphrase what was just said by the doctors, but he does that because he believes that's what he's supposed to do. I will even accept that he wants to give people hope, but even if we accept that motive, I still think there's an underlying need to feed his ego (that he is the hope-giver). So, because he's inarticulate and probably only paid attention half-way, he gets up there to give hope and bumbles through his synopsis. He chose his words poorly. End of story. As the President, he needs to try to do better. That's where the narrative needs to stop and start. If, due to an overabundance of caution, his opponents feel the need to suggest that people should avoid trying this for themselves, go for it.

Furthermore, I take issue with Trump claiming it was sarcasm. It offends me. I personally didn't think what he said originally was a big deal. When I heard it, I assumed he was talking about an aerosolized spray that one could shoot into their lungs, but knew immediately this was going to be turned into a meme. His supporters did come to his defense, though. This is not because the statement is an inherently good statement, but because they don't believe he has bad intentions (which I don't, either). For this reason, they attempted to make sense out of a poorly constructed series of questions. Then Trump walks it back the next day. He probably realized it was unrealistic to expect them to make such a spray, or someone gave him clarity as to why that wouldn't help with the virus. Instead of admitting it was poorly phrased or he was just spitballing, he walked it back. That does leave his supporters dangling in the wind. Aside from throwing them under the bus, it was disingenuous. He should be called out for it.

THAT SAID, the democratic response to this has been insane. I would argue that the headlines and talking points have been far more damaging that anything Trump actually said. Pelosi wasn't being sarcastic when she said Trump suggested people should treat themselves with Lysol. He didn't say anything remotely close to that. There are multiple examples of bad journalism in response to this as well. Look at this opener to a politico article: "President Donald Trump’s suggestion that Americans should inject themselves with household disinfectants as a coronavirus remedy provoked an apparently universal rebuke Friday..." What? He never even got close to suggesting this. There are countless headlines and other things that made it look like he actually suggested that.

It is dangerous and irresponsible to rephrase what actually happened. If people don't trust the media or democratic politicians (which some don't), and believe that the media wants to attack Trump (which some do), which do you think played a bigger role in provoking the idiots to spray lysol into their lungs?

Trump asked a question. That was it. He asked if it could be tested. No one should interpret that as do experiments at home.

Gabe, I find you to be relatively reasonable. I can concede he should have choose his words better. I can concede he should probably talk less. I concede he  hung his supporters out to dry. Can you concede that this has been largely overblown by the media and used as a political attack ad? Can you concede that there is a significant portion of the media and democratic politicians that are outright lying about what happened?

You're obviously a smart person with good intentions.
I hear you trying to be fair about this.
But you're trying too hard, in my opinion.
You said that the Democrats are insane.  And in many ways they are, of course. But how are they insane for this?
Is there any comment that a prominent Democrat or prominent member of the left-wing media could have made about Trump's lung disinfectant press conference, that would have you saying, "oh, they're being reasonable for once."
Think about it.
Imagine Nancy Pelosi saying anything else. Imagine yourself watching the video of her saying it and reading the article about it, and then imagine yourself saying,  "she's not insane right now, she's being reasonable."
If you can think of many possible individual answers, then, yes, you're being fair. If you can't think of any, you're not, and you can stop trying to perform at it.

---

Trump: "2 + 2 = 5"
B2Hibry: "actually, and I have military experience to back this up, and it does equal five sometimes."
Pelosi: "Trump just can't stop saying incorrect things."
Last42min: "obviously 2 + 2 is not 5, but Pelosi is just sowing discord and making everybody mistrust their duly elected leaders. I think both sides are bad."

 I'm sure it warms the cockles of his heart to know that an esteemed presence such as yourself deigns his work acceptable.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You said that the Democrats are insane.

I know English isn't your first language, but learn to read.

---

You said that the Democrats are insane.

I know English isn't your first language, but learn to read.

English is my first language. You have to go back to my great-great-grandfather to find somebody who was not born in the United States...
You said their response was insane.
Semantics. 
Try to imagine a response coming from Nancy Pelosi that you would not turn around and say is insane.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.