Trump vs Biden 2020, Day 64 of the Pennsylvania count (pt 5) Read OP

Boggles · 08-12-2020 12:05PM

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

Bidens nomination for defence sec, sits on the board of one of the military industrial complex companies (Raytheon).

Uhmmm new war incoming??

I wonder does he know Mark Esper?

MeMen2_MoRi_ · 08-12-2020 12:17PM

Boggles wrote: »

I wonder does he know Mark Esper?

Probabilities would suggest yes.

MeMen2_MoRi_ · 08-12-2020 12:29PM

Sorry not sorry, this gave me a good chuckle..

https://twitter.com/CaslerNoel/status/1336145088137801728?s=19

mcmoustache · 08-12-2020 12:30PM

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

Bidens nomination for defence sec, sits on the board of one of the military industrial complex companies (Raytheon).

Uhmmm new war incoming??

I'm not sure what Biden was thinking here in terms of optics. It's definitely not a good look to have a former military Raytheon board member in this position given that it had been a civilian role until Trump. He might do a good job but this really doesn't look great.

As for a new war, I don't think there's any appetite for that but the arms manufacturers don't need the US to be directly involved in a war to turn a profit when they can sell to cnuts like the Saudis.

seamus · 08-12-2020 12:36PM

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

Sorry not sorry, this gave me a good chuckle..

https://twitter.com/CaslerNoel/status/1336145088137801728?s=19

That actually fits suprisingly well with the claim that Trump has to permanently wear an adult nappy.

Allegedly years of abusing prescription meds have left him partially incontinent.

08-12-2020 12:39PM

mcmoustache wrote: »

I'm not sure what Biden was thinking here in terms of optics. It's definitely not a good look to have a former military Raytheon board member in this position given that it had been a civilian role until Trump. He might do a good job but this really doesn't look great.

As for a new war, I don't think there's any appetite for that but the arms manufacturers don't need the US to be directly involved in a war to turn a profit when they can sell to cnuts like the Saudis.

What do you mean by this? There have been plenty of SecDefs who have previously been in the military, including under Trump. In what way is Lloyd Austin not a civilian but James Mattis is?

Edit: I misread you, I thought you said "including Trump" rather than "until Trump".

MeMen2_MoRi_ · 08-12-2020 12:45PM

mcmoustache wrote: »

I'm not sure what Biden was thinking here in terms of optics. It's definitely not a good look to have a former military Raytheon board member in this position given that it had been a civilian role until Trump. He might do a good job but this really doesn't look great.

As for a new war, I don't think there's any appetite for that but the arms manufacturers don't need the US to be directly involved in a war to turn a profit when they can sell to cnuts like the Saudis.

What is also not a great bit of info, is that he needs a waiver to be confirmed because he isn't long enough retired from service... Not that he's not long enough out of being a board member at Raytheon.

To me that sounds like a broken system.

Hopefully the suspicions don't come to pass.

Smee_Again · 08-12-2020 12:51PM

seamus wrote: »

That actually fits suprisingly well with the claim that Trump has to permanently wear an adult nappy.

Allegedly years of abusing prescription meds have left him partially incontinent.

Well he certainly **** the bed in terms of his covid response.

MeMen2_MoRi_ · 08-12-2020 01:04PM

Smee_Again wrote: »

Well he certainly **** the bed in terms of his covid response.

Funny thing is, I think he started out trying to do the right things.. somewhere along the line someone either got in his his ear or he just had a fcuk it moment and gazed at the shining lights of the stock market and threw his hat behind the stocks and getting them back going again and hasn't been for turning since.

Everything started to turn for the worse with trump and covid response around the time of the infamous tweets of liberate Michigan all that stuff.

robinph · 08-12-2020 01:24PM

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

Funny thing is, I think he started out trying to do the right things..

Sorry, what? When was he trying to do the right things at the start of anything?

It's a hoax, will all be gone in a couple of weeks, China created it, don't wear masks, drink bleach, stick a lUV light up your bum, the dems did it, name the vaccine after me...

Quin_Dub · 08-12-2020 01:25PM

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

Funny thing is, I think he started out trying to do the right things.. somewhere along the line someone either got in his his ear or he just had a fcuk it moment and gazed at the shining lights of the stock market and threw his hat behind the stocks and getting them back going again and hasn't been for turning since.

Everything started to turn for the worse with trump and covid response around the time of the infamous tweets of liberate Michigan all that stuff.

I couldn't disagree with that viewpoint more.

He never got it right.

He started off by trying to downplay it - "15 people, going down to zero very soon" etc.

Then in early March he started to actually take it seriously, but only briefly.

He was having the daily Press conferences and his popularity was on the up, getting some of the "rally round the flag" lift that most world leaders were getting.

Then however he started to enjoy the daily limelight too much and his verbal diarrhea screwed it up with his disinfectant and "shining a light inside the body" rubbish.

So , he stopped the briefings and just gave up personally - He put Pence in charge and just wandered off for a while.

Then as the election season began to pick up pace he decided that the only thing he had to campaign on was the Economy so he started pushing the whole "Liberate" mantra.

It's been an utter abdication of responsibility since then.

ohnonotgmail · 08-12-2020 01:27PM

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

Funny thing is, I think he started out trying to do the right things.. somewhere along the line someone either got in his his ear or he just had a fcuk it moment and gazed at the shining lights of the stock market and threw his hat behind the stocks and getting them back going again and hasn't been for turning since.

Everything started to turn for the worse with trump and covid response around the time of the infamous tweets of liberate Michigan all that stuff.

in his interview on March 19 with bob woodward he said he was playing it down. that is 2 months after this started. he started off handling it badly and proceeded to get worse.

Carfacemandog · 08-12-2020 01:46PM

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

Funny thing is, I think he started out trying to do the right things.. somewhere along the line someone either got in his his ear or he just had a fcuk it moment and gazed at the shining lights of the stock market and threw his hat behind the stocks and getting them back going again and hasn't been for turning since.

Everything started to turn for the worse with trump and covid response around the time of the infamous tweets of liberate Michigan all that stuff.

Right from the start he was declaring coverage of it "a hoax" and saying it would just go away "like a miracle" since apparently only something like 15 people had it.

MeMen2_MoRi_ · 08-12-2020 01:54PM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I couldn't disagree with that viewpoint more.

He never got it right.

He started off by trying to downplay it - "15 people, going down to zero very soon" etc.

Then in early March he started to actually take it seriously, but only briefly.

He was having the daily Press conferences and his popularity was on the up, getting some of the "rally round the flag" lift that most world leaders were getting.

Then however he started to enjoy the daily limelight too much and his verbal diarrhea screwed it up with his disinfectant and "shining a light inside the body" rubbish.

So , he stopped the briefings and just gave up personally - He put Pence in charge and just wandered off for a while.

Then as the election season began to pick up pace he decided that the only thing he had to campaign on was the Economy so he started pushing the whole "Liberate" mantra.

It's been an utter abdication of responsibility since then.

I'm not going to try out a timeline on how long I think he was doing the right thing/taking it seriously.. here thinking about it, not too hard though, it was in around the inject/UV light stuff that it has been an utter abdication of his role/responsibility in responding to this happened.

I'll give trump all the sh!t he deserves, but there was a time In this that I thought he was taken things seriously.

The other two replies I'm not going to dispute anything said in them I agree, it doesn't take from what I felt back then that there was an attempt for a period of time he was being serious about things, then It all went to sh!t as we can see till this day..

ohnonotgmail · 08-12-2020 01:57PM

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

I'm not going to try out a timeline on how long I think he was doing the right thing/taking it seriously.. here thinking about it, not too hard though, it was in around the inject/UV light stuff that it has been an utter abdication of his role/responsibility in responding to this happened.

I'll give trump all the sh!t he deserves, but there was a time In this that I thought he was taken things seriously.

The other two replies I'm not going to dispute anything said in them I agree, it doesn't take from what I felt back then that there was an attempt for a period of time he was being serious about things, then It all went to sh!t as we can see till this day..

the injecting bleach was the end of april. the woodward interview was March. at what point was he taking it seriously and how did he demonstrate this?

everlast75 · 08-12-2020 01:57PM

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1336286909245566976?s=19

Important date today

robinph · 08-12-2020 02:03PM

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

... but there was a time In this that I thought he was taken things seriously.

The day he got admitted to hospital possibly, but even then I'm not sure he was taking it seriously. There really isn't anything to show where he was taking anything seriously regarding anything. Even the thing that gets him most animated (losing at something such as an election, or a TV award, or having the biggest inauguration crowd), he's not taking it seriously. It's just his standard operating procedure of:
1) Shout about how lots of people say you are the greatest
2) Shout about how you know more about "thing" than anyone ever
3) Whine about how the vote/ election/ media/ TV camera are rigged and designed just to make you look bad
4) Loose at whatever it was
5) Repeat step 3 forever

ChikiChiki · 08-12-2020 02:08PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

in his interview on March 19 with bob woodward he said he was playing it down. that is 2 months after this started. he started off handling it badly and proceeded to get worse.

He has a basic character flaw where he cannot admit that he has got things wrong. World leaders do this all the time, admit mistakes and be contrite.

Not once has Trump done this. Instead his approach has been to blame others, double down and goes on the attack.

An incredibly flawed human being. I think his nieces book is probably bang on the money in it's analysis of the roots of his psychological flaws.

everlast75 · 08-12-2020 03:00PM

https://twitter.com/BBuchman_CNS/status/1336306160790609921?s=20

1B14655A94E638BD88FA6BD133A3D572152770DB

ohnonotgmail · 08-12-2020 03:02PM

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/BBuchman_CNS/status/1336306160790609921?s=20

perhaps he means this sort of troupe?

Carfacemandog · 08-12-2020 03:14PM

The anti defund crowd will be up in arms about this any moment now, given the military assistance that has been called in for some protests and riots. Any. Moment. Now...

They definitely won't try to claim Trump is reducing military action in the middle East despite drone strikes going through the roof since he took office, no not at all. Definitely not.

duploelabs · 08-12-2020 03:17PM

Carfacemandog wrote: »

The anti defund crowd will be up in arms about this any moment now, given the military assistance that has been called in for some protests and riots. Any. Moment. Now...

They definitely won't try to claim Trump is reducing military action in the middle East despite drone strikes going through the roof since he took office, no not at all. Definitely not.

Civilian deaths in Afghanistan are up 330% since 2016

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-afghanistan-airstrikes-increased-civilian-deaths-by-330-since-2016-2020-12?r=US&IR=T

Carfacemandog · 08-12-2020 03:20PM

duploelabs wrote: »

Civilian deaths in Afghanistan are up 330% since 2016

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-afghanistan-airstrikes-increased-civilian-deaths-by-330-since-2016-2020-12?r=US&IR=T

Oh I know.

Andsodo most trunp supporters who try and claim otherwise. They can't go letting the truth get inthe way of loyalty and virtue signalling after allm

mcmoustache · 08-12-2020 03:22PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the injecting bleach was the end of april. the woodward interview was March. at what point was he taking it seriously and how did he demonstrate this?

I don't know if you're aware, but the bit in bold is how you summon a certain poster to this thread, assuming that they aren't threadbanned. Another is by bringing up Trump's mocking of a disabled person. Such summoning will get you massive essays explaining that he didn't use the word bleach or that Trump mimics disabled people all the time.

ohnonotgmail · 08-12-2020 03:23PM

mcmoustache wrote: »

I don't know if you're aware, but the bit in bold is how you summon a certain poster to this thread, assuming that they aren't threadbanned. Another is by bringing up Trump's mocking of a disabled person. Such summoning will get you massive essays explaining that he didn't use the word bleach or that Trump mimics disabled people all the time.

I think you have to say it three times in a row.

robinph · 08-12-2020 03:23PM

Why does he keep going on about the section 230 thing?

It is a protection for the likes of Facebook and Twitter such that they are not held totally responsible for idiots posting on their sites in advance of them being made aware that said idiot is posting on their site. By removing that protection though you'll just end up with the idiots (such as Trump and his fans) being booted from the site and or the sites disappear. If you remove the protections from the online companies then Trump loses his platform. He may not like Twitter, but if he puts them out of business then what does he do.

He ceases to exist without Twitter.

Carfacemandog · 08-12-2020 03:24PM

Certain posters completely stopped posting (under their current username at least) on November 13th.

Carfacemandog · 08-12-2020 03:26PM

robinph wrote: »

Why does he keep going on about the section 230 thing?

It is a protection for the likes of Facebook and Twitter such that they are not held totally responsible for idiots posting on their sites in advance of them being made aware that said idiot is posting on their site. By removing that protection though you'll just end up with the idiots (such as Trump and his fans) being booted from the site and or the sites disappear. If you remove the protections from the online companies then Trump loses his platform. He may not like Twitter, but if he puts them out of business then what does he do.

He ceases to exist without Twitter.

Trump's severe shift on social media (who he has always had issue with but been on an absolute mission against for about a fortnight now) coinciding with the reveal of him possibly wearing a nappy, is about as close to confirmation of the existence of said nappy one could possibly get without video footage.

everlast75 · 08-12-2020 03:27PM

duploelabs wrote: »

Civilian deaths in Afghanistan are up 330% since 2016

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-afghanistan-airstrikes-increased-civilian-deaths-by-330-since-2016-2020-12?r=US&IR=T

There was a story in Motherjones about the amount of civilian deaths increasing by something like 90% under trump?

Edit - found it. 95%

https://twitter.com/ally_harp/status/1335888276192976896?s=19

ohnonotgmail · 08-12-2020 03:30PM

robinph wrote: »

Why does he keep going on about the section 230 thing?

It is a protection for the likes of Facebook and Twitter such that they are not held totally responsible for idiots posting on their sites in advance of them being made aware that said idiot is posting on their site. By removing that protection though you'll just end up with the idiots (such as Trump and his fans) being booted from the site and or the sites disappear. If you remove the protections from the online companies then Trump loses his platform. He may not like Twitter, but if he puts them out of business then what does he do.

He ceases to exist without Twitter.

there is a summary of it here https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/trump-and-section-230-what-know

my understanding is that without section 230 then twitter et al would not be allowed to moderate any posts. If they start to moderate then they become liable for that anything that is posted on twitter. I think this is at the heart of trumps reasoning. Without section 230 twitter wont be able to put warnings on his posts. that it may cause other knock-on effects are immaterial to him.

Trump vs Biden 2020, Day 64 of the Pennsylvania count (pt 5) Read OP

Comments