>Do we need to dig in and tear out the quote word by word now before we're even allowed to refute it?

Are you actually a new account? Because if so, be warned - that is exactly how HN works a lot of the time.

I'm not. I have a longstanding account, but had a... somewhat suspicious event on other social media that I think might have been inspired by comments here. My account has never been very private and there's a lot of potentially harvestable information there. So I'm experimenting with keeping my comments in more controversial topics isolated.

I'm curious, how much does the Internet Research Agency pay these days?

Then be more accurate with your words and not irresponsibly spreading misinformation.

FWIW: 'Promising' is a pretty accurate paraphrase of “I think that’s a great thing to look at", which is what the NY Times quotes him as saying.

I'll assume no negative intent and that English is not your first language, because there's a big difference between calling something "promising" versus "interesting to look at".

I am a native English speaker and would agree that "interesting to look at" is perhaps a little weaker than "promising." Maybe 20% weaker, as if there's a scale.

However, the transcript from the NY Times and BBC--not to mention my comment above--also has him saying "a great idea to look at" in the same response, which I do think is equivalent to 'promising'.

This is an inevitable consequence of telling others to be careful with their words.

How, exactly? In context, a treatment being "interesting to look at" is interesting because you think it might work. Isn't that what "promising" means in the same context? You seem to be hiding behind the presidents imprecision here. I genuinely don't understand how someone could look at the video of that press conference and think the president was not celebrating the idea of possibly finding a cure by injecting disinfectants into people's bodies.

Perhaps you could demand that first of the president of the united states, and then perhaps, secondarily of some random poster on hacker news?

You're the one being irresponsible here, in mounting any kind of defense of what Trump said. It was total crazy talk. Tell the truth.

> Do we need to dig in and tear out the quote word by word now before we're even allowed to refute it?

Yes, this is a forum consisting largely of founder-engineers and words mean things. Not all bugs are spiders, not all disinfectants are bleach. Claiming the president suggested we inject bleach is disinformation, and it weakens the credibility of the rest of your argument.

... Wait, what non-bleach disinfectant would it be appropriate for him to recommend injecting?

Does the president bear any responsibility whatsoever for his own words, or should we treat them as oracular emanations of the divine, to be explored for meaning like the entrails of a sacrificial beast or the residues at the bottom of a coffee cup?