Can Trump be stopped?

Man with broke phone · 14-11-2020 5:10pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's perfectly within the US government's powers to ban sale of weapons to certain countries. Haven't you ever heard of sanctions?

Also they're not simply selling rifles. The US government is actively selling the likes of missiles to Saudi Arabia. Trump was actively pursuing more deals as of this year. They've also done such deals with the UAE.

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2020/05/27/trump-seeking-new-arms-deal-with-saudi-arabia-says-key-senator/

The Saudi deal amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/20/us-saudi-arabia-seal-weapons-deal-worth-nearly-110-billion-as-trump-begins-visit.html

So you claim Trump has been negative for the military industrial complex but the reality is they're thriving under him and he's actively boasted about the sales to states. His policies have benefited them and it's reflected in the stock market because their policies are far looser on international arms sales.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-lockheed-results-idUSKCN1RZ16Q

So your critisism of Trump is that he doesnt interfere with foreign countries enough and should be banning them from buying weapons and setting up embargoes so that you can blame him for ruining relationships and causing trouble on the world stage.

Fall_Guy · 14-11-2020 5:23pm

Man with broke phone wrote: »

So your critisism of Trump is that he doesnt interfere with foreign countries enough and should be banning them from buying weapons and setting up embargoes so that you can blame him for ruining relationships and causing trouble on the world stage.

Are you suggesting that Trump doesn't interfere in other countries through military means? Prior to revoking US policy to release information on drone attacks in March 2019, he had presided over 2000+ drone attacks. Far more in 2 and a half years than Obama did in 8 years in office.

Secondly, are you suggesting that Trump presides over an administration that sells arms to other countries just so as to not ruin relationships rather than as a profit-making exercise, despite the fact that his whole America First shtick is built on abandoning old relationships in favour of policies that may have short term benefit for the U.S. at the expense of international stability?

14-11-2020 5:25pm

Man with broke phone wrote: »

So your critisism of Trump is that he doesnt interfere with foreign countries enough and should be banning them from buying weapons and setting up embargoes so that you can blame him for ruining relationships and causing trouble on the world stage.

You claimed he was bad for the military industrial complex etc. That's a lie. The administration actively courted countries with questionable reputations and encouraged them to buy US arms. You think it's a good thing for countries with poor reputations to be able to buy US arms? Do you also view the likes of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons to be interference?

The reality is proliferation of weapons to such countries is not beneficial for any of us. Here's an example of how one of those bombs that they sold were used. That's the support of relationship they should foster?

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/17/middleeast/us-saudi-yemen-bus-strike-intl/index.html

Gbear · 14-11-2020 5:32pm

moon2 wrote: »

76 million voted against him.

If we're throwing around numbers we may as well make it clear that you're referring to a minority of people. It is a large minority, but it's still the minority.

As Trump said - a victory of 306 EC votes is a landslide. Biden has won by a landslide

In an election between a center left and a center right candidate, a split of 76/70 would be fine. It wouldn't cause any tension, because in all likelihood, the majority of either side wouldn't have their noses put out of joint by the other side's candidate becoming president.

It is extremely concerning that 70 million people were willing to vote for a fascist. It doesn't mean that there's 70m die-hard fascists in the US, but it means that the Republican coaltion have enough people in it that don't care enough about politics, or aren't aware enough about the specifics, that however many extremists there are, they have the tacit support of something approaching half of the electorate, and nearly a quarter of the country.

There are essentially no means, fair or foul, for Trump to hang on to power, but regardless, the idea that this election was stolen will further cement the idea among the Republican party base that it is not possible for Democrats to be legitimately in power. That could have serious repercussions down the line, because it will make it easier for the next fascist to come along, and we can't rely on them all being as incompetent as Donald Trump and his clown car of enablers.

The concern here isn't that Trump will stay in power. It's that his self-serving fantasy of election fraud is another knife in the back of American democracy, and it's already faltering.

crazy 88 · 14-11-2020 6:15pm

Girly Gal wrote: »

It's interesting that that announcement was left until after the election, also Trump was laughed at and ridiculed when he said the vaccine would be available soon,with the experts saying it was at least 18 months to 2 years away

Man with broke phone wrote: »

The vaccination is all but ready but Biden will take credit.

Trump can't take credit either and him doing so is another lie. Pfizer were not part of operation warp speed

crazy 88 · 14-11-2020 6:29pm

Gbear wrote: »

It is extremely concerning that 70 million people were willing to vote for a fascist. It doesn't mean that there's 70m die-hard fascists in the US, but it means that the Republican coaltion have enough people in it that don't care enough about politics, or aren't aware enough about the specifics, that however many extremists there are, they have the tacit support of something approaching half of the electorate, and nearly a quarter of the country.

I was willing to give those Americans the benefit of the doubt in 2016 - a vote for change, protest vote, anti Clinton etc. But after four years of seeing what Trump is they still vote for him even despite Biden being a very moderate Democrat. And now most of them believe there was a grand conspiracy to rig a US election (something that would take thousands of people and their silence for life)

If they believe this and Trump were to throw democracy completely out the window and try seize power by force (extremely unlikely I know), I'd imagine these people would have no problem going along with it. It's quite disturbing and makes me fear for America and the world

Girly Gal · 14-11-2020 6:32pm

Gbear wrote: »

In an election between a center left and a center right candidate, a split of 76/70 would be fine. It wouldn't cause any tension, because in all likelihood, the majority of either side wouldn't have their noses put out of joint by the other side's candidate becoming president.

It is extremely concerning that 70 million people were willing to vote for a fascist. It doesn't mean that there's 70m die-hard fascists in the US, but it means that the Republican coaltion have enough people in it that don't care enough about politics, or aren't aware enough about the specifics, that however many extremists there are, they have the tacit support of something approaching half of the electorate, and nearly a quarter of the country.

There are essentially no means, fair or foul, for Trump to hang on to power, but regardless, the idea that this election was stolen will further cement the idea among the Republican party base that it is not possible for Democrats to be legitimately in power. That could have serious repercussions down the line, because it will make it easier for the next fascist to come along, and we can't rely on them all being as incompetent as Donald Trump and his clown car of enablers.

The concern here isn't that Trump will stay in power. It's that his self-serving fantasy of election fraud is another knife in the back of American democracy, and it's already faltering.

Just as Trump can't dismiss or disregard the 76 million who voted for Biden, you can't just dismiss the 70 million who voted for Trump as either fascist, stupid or not bothered caring enough, because they didn't vote how you liked, politics is made up of differing views. The vast majority of those 70 million are ordinary decent Americans who were either happy with what the Trump administration were doing or didn't like what the alternative offered, just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean you can dismiss them or shut them down, they have a right to vote how they like.

The narrative on here is that the Republicans are evil and the Democrats can do no wrong. The reality is much different, there's very little difference between the vast majority of them, it's just the extremists on both sides where the difference lies. It seems to be the nut jobs on both sides that get most of the air time.
Trump is a crass individual and I personally wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him, but, he did manage to capture a vote from people who either felt they weren't being represented or were disillusioned with the established candidates, don't think he cared a jot for them, just used them as a means to an end, it's what most politicians do, Trump just didn't bother to hide it like other politicians do.

roundymac · 14-11-2020 6:41pm

Trump is hoping that a curefor Covid is rolled out before he leaves office, that way he can claim it for himself, the bull**** that will come out of him when he goes to run in 2024 will be unbelieable.

donspeekinglesh · 14-11-2020 6:55pm

Hunky Monster wrote: »

Voting irregularities.

Maybe, maybe not.

Let him go to court and see if there's proof. What's the problem. If there's no proof he's gone. What are you all worried about.

He has gone to court. He's won one case (about late arriving votes in PA, too few to make the slightest difference to the result), and lost 20. His legal teams are abandoning ship. Those that remain are denying the cases are to do with fraud (the opposite of what Trump is rage tweeting), or getting ripped into by the judges for failing to understand basic legal concepts like hearsay.

There is no proof. There is no legal strategy. It's a PR strategy.

jaykay74 · 14-11-2020 7:04pm

Girly Gal wrote: »

It's interesting that that announcement was left until after the election, also Trump was laughed at and ridiculed when he said the vaccine would be available soon,with the experts saying it was at least 18 months to 2 years away

Do you think Pfizer who are in a multi billion dollar race against other vaccine manufacturers just held back on announcing they had made significant progress on the road to the vaccine ? That seems a bit of a mental angle to take to be honest.

jamule · 14-11-2020 7:30pm

jaykay74 wrote: »

Do you think Pfizer who are in a multi billion dollar race against other vaccine manufacturers just held back on announcing they had made significant progress on the road to the vaccine ? That seems a bit of a mental angle to take to be honest.

Pfizer made an anouncement about 6 weeks ago that it had made progress with the vaccine but will not be giving any updates until after the election. They had no interest in playing politics

El_Duderino 09 · 14-11-2020 7:30pm

Girly Gal wrote: »

Pretty sure most of the previous presidents would stay on if it was an option, also need to go back to Bush Sr., since a sitting President was defeated so nothing more recently to compare with, also seem to remember Clinton's administration changeover to Bush jr. wasn't that harmonious either. Bottom line is Trump will go of his own accord when the time comes like all previous Presidents had to. Anyone who believes anything else is being hysterical.

How did Bush senior handle it ? Did he deny defeat and launch hundreds of lawsuits? Or did he accept defeat and leave of his own accord.

Leaving because he runs out of support for denying thyroid result from his own side, isn’t leaving of his own accord. It’s leaving because hew forced out. What he’s doing, has never happened before in the US. A clearly defeated candidate refusing to accept the result, isn’t “leaving of his own accord”

jamule · 14-11-2020 7:35pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

How did Bush senior handle it ? Did he deny defeat and launch hundreds of lawsuits? Or did he accept defeat and leave of his own accord.

Leaving because he runs out of support for denying thyroid result from his own side, isn’t leaving of his own accord. It’s leaving because hew forced out. What he’s doing, has never happened before in the US. A clearly defeated candidate refusing to accept the result, isn’t “leaving of his own accord”

he blamed his AG for inciting the riots in LA . Wonder what ever became of the lad

Girly Gal · 14-11-2020 7:39pm

jaykay74 wrote: »

Do you think Pfizer who are in a multi billion dollar race against other vaccine manufacturers just held back on announcing they had made significant progress on the road to the vaccine ? That seems a bit of a mental angle to take to be honest.

The Pharma industry were backing Biden over Trump as it would be more beneficial for them. The Trump administration had targeted drug company prices so delaying the announcement a few days so as not to give Trump any chance to gain from it was a shred move. Pfizer would also be fairly aware if a competitor was close to announcing a breakthrough vaccine. I'm not aware of other companies making any vaccine breakthrough announcements since Pfizer did. It may well have been coincidental, but, the timing is very convenient.

Girly Gal · 14-11-2020 7:51pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

How did Bush senior handle it ? Did he deny defeat and launch hundreds of lawsuits? Or did he accept defeat and leave of his own accord.

Leaving because he runs out of support for denying thyroid result from his own side, isn’t leaving of his own accord. It’s leaving because hew forced out. What he’s doing, has never happened before in the US. A clearly defeated candidate refusing to accept the result, isn’t “leaving of his own accord”

Bush v Clinton wasn't even close, had Biden won by the same margin Trump would have little choice but to concede, but, it was close enough in a handful of states for him to drag this out. Don't worry he'll be out in January one way or another, what he's doing now is all for show. Btw I'm not a Trump supporter, just sick of all the hysteria that he's not going to go

14-11-2020 7:57pm

Girly Gal wrote: »

The Pharma industry were backing Biden over Trump as it would be more beneficial for them. The Trump administration had targeted drug company prices so delaying the announcement a few days so as not to give Trump any chance to gain from it was a shred move. Pfizer would also be fairly aware if a competitor was close to announcing a breakthrough vaccine. I'm not aware of other companies making any vaccine breakthrough announcements since Pfizer did. It may well have been coincidental, but, the timing is very convenient.

The thing is, Trump is not remotely responsible for the vaccine. It was in conjunction with Germany.

jamule · 14-11-2020 7:59pm

Girly Gal wrote: »

Bush v Clinton wasn't even close, had Biden won by the same margin Trump would have little choice but to concede, but, it was close enough in a handful of states for him to drag this out. Don't worry he'll be out in January one way or another, what he's doing now is all for show. Btw I'm not a Trump supporter, just sick of all the hysteria that he's not going to go

but according to trump it was a landslide.

i love the ould i'm not a trump supporter but....

Girly Gal · 14-11-2020 8:17pm

jamule wrote: »

but according to trump it was a landslide.

i love the ould i'm not a trump supporter but....

So because you don't agree with something I say, you immediately insinuate that I'm a Trump supporter, to be perfectly honest whether Trump or Biden won wasn't going to affect my life that much and I didn't particularly care that much, it's the stupid belief some people have that Trump some how won't go that annoys me. I guarantee you, Biden will be president in January unless something happens to him in which case I'm pretty sure Harris would take over.

Gbear · 14-11-2020 8:20pm

Girly Gal wrote: »

Just as Trump can't dismiss or disregard the 76 million who voted for Biden, you can't just dismiss the 70 million who voted for Trump as either fascist, stupid or not bothered caring enough, because they didn't vote how you liked, politics is made up of differing views. The vast majority of those 70 million are ordinary decent Americans who were either happy with what the Trump administration were doing or didn't like what the alternative offered, just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean you can dismiss them or shut them down, they have a right to vote how they like.

You can both sides two rational parties in a functional democracy, but not the Republican party and anyone else. We're not talking about FF and FG here. We're not even talking the Tories and Labour. This is Gemma O'Doherty in party form.

For one, Trump and the Republicans will disregard those 76m voters. They're doing that, and have been doing so for decades, in how they attack the franchise of those on the other side.

That the majority of those 70m voters were happy with what Trump was doing makes my point quite clearly.
They're perfectly happy voting for someone who obviously doesn't give a **** about them and spent his entire tenure stuffing his pockets at the expense of the public purse. The frequent racist statements, the holding children in cages, the willful attacks on democracy, the rule of law and the free press - none of that fazes them.

These people are either unaware of these facts, and thus ignorant enough to accept more or less anything, they're actively supportive of them, or they dislike them, but they're tolerant of them to achieve some other end.

It doesn't really matter what that end is. It could be the most virtuous end in existence, but it means they're happy with fascism if they believe it'll get them there. That should deeply concern anyone.

The rise of the far right has never been about an entire country just up and joining the Blackshirts one day. Hitler didn't have unanimous, unambiguous support, even among supporters of the Nazi party, but there's a reason why the Nuremburg defence isn't taken seriously, or why we have a phrase, "All it takes for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing".

The Republicans aren't all frothing at the mouth for the blood of minorities and nobody thinks they are. They're not evil. The problem is that they don't need to be for this Republican party to be come fully, nakedly fascist, if it's not already.

Girly Gal wrote: »

The narrative on here is that the Republicans are evil and the Democrats can do no wrong. The reality is much different, there's very little difference between the vast majority of them, it's just the extremists on both sides where the difference lies. It seems to be the nut jobs on both sides that get most of the air time.
Trump is a crass individual and I personally wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him, but, he did manage to capture a vote from people who either felt they weren't being represented or were disillusioned with the established candidates, don't think he cared a jot for them, just used them as a means to an end, it's what most politicians do, Trump just didn't bother to hide it like other politicians do.

"Both Sides" is just rubbish. It's born of either bad faith or the moral cowardice of being unable to take a principled stance on anything. It's the politics of saying a stubbed toe is as bad as a brain hemorrage because they're both a form of damage.

As with everything, individuals, Republican and Democrat, will fall on a spectrum. However, when you look at what the mainstream of each party is, and the people who actually wield power within them, it becomes blindingly obvious that they're miles apart. Yes, there's a few black block types who get into scraps on the far left, but, 1, they're a tiny minority, 2, they're vastly less dangerous than the extremists on the far right, who routinely carry out terrorist attacks and kill people, and 3, they're absolutely miles from any power within the Democratic party.

Who's the elected extremist in the Democratic party? AOC? A milquetoast social democrat? While on the Republican side you have people who believe the ****ing Rapture is imminent. Or people who believe that there's a giant paedophile cannibal cult conspiracy that Donald Trump will save us from. People you'd be afraid to stand next to. Legitimately fanatical crazy people, who should probably be in a padded cell.

The difference between the two is that the extremists aren't a factor in the Democratic party or the greater progressive movement, while they're the mainstream of the Republican party.

I have a pretty healthy contempt for the Democratic party, pretty much across the spectrum, but they're absolutely no comparison. The Republican party are terrifying.

looksee · 14-11-2020 8:23pm

Girly Gal wrote: »

So because you don't agree with something I say, you immediately insinuate that I'm a Trump supporter, to be perfectly honest whether Trump or Biden won wasn't going to affect my life that much and I didn't particularly care that much, it's the stupid belief some people have that Trump some how won't go that annoys me. I guarantee you, Biden will be president in January unless something happens to him in which case I'm pretty sure Harris would take over.

Of course Trump will go in January, he may be stubborn, stupid and on another planet, but he is not going to put himself in a position of being marched out of the White House in handcuffs. The damage is what he is doing in the meantime, creating security issues for the US and making it impossible for Biden to get on with the job.

El_Duderino 09 · 14-11-2020 8:29pm

Girly Gal wrote: »

Bush v Clinton wasn't even close, had Biden won by the same margin Trump would have little choice but to concede, but, it was close enough in a handful of states for him to drag this out. Don't worry he'll be out in January one way or another, what he's doing now is all for show. Btw I'm not a Trump supporter, just sick of all the hysteria that he's not going to go

So Bush accepted defeat and that was the end of it?

This election is almost exactly the same margin by which Trump beat Clinton 4 years ago. How did she handle being beaten compared with how Trump is handling it?

He’ll go IF he’s pushed which is very different from going of his own accord.

He’ll almost certainly be forced out by loss of support to stay and deny the election result.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000 · 14-11-2020 9:04pm

jamule wrote: »

Pfizer made an anouncement about 6 weeks ago that it had made progress with the vaccine but will not be giving any updates until after the election. They had no interest in playing politics

That's the very definition of playing politics.

Wow.

14-11-2020 9:16pm

Hunky Monster wrote: »

That's the very definition of playing politics.

Wow.

Well, it doesn't matter anyway since the administration had nothing to do with it.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000 · 14-11-2020 9:46pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well, it doesn't matter anyway since the administration had nothing to do with it.

I agree with you but if the announcement came in a few months time when Biden is in he would get ALL the credit.

I just find it strange it was announced days after the election.

Girly Gal · 14-11-2020 9:48pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So Bush accepted defeat and that was the end of it?

This election is almost exactly the same margin by which Trump beat Clinton 4 years ago. How did she handle being beaten compared with how Trump is handling it?

He’ll go IF he’s pushed which is very different from going of his own accord.

He’ll almost certainly be forced out by loss of support to stay and deny the election result.

Of course Trump should have conceded, but, the idea you're pushing is that he'll be dragged out of office., which won't happen. At some point in the next few weeks he'll concede to save face. At that point he'll have already stoked up his fan base and made Biden's transition as difficult as he can.

Clinton was not the incumbent so had little leverage to do what Trump is doing, not that she'd do it anyway. Whether people like it or not Trump won the election legitimately in 2016, just as he has legitimately lost it this time.

14-11-2020 9:55pm

Hunky Monster wrote: »

I agree with you but if the announcement came in a few months time when Biden is in he would get ALL the credit.

I just find it strange it was announced days after the election.

Thing is, Trump is undermining any possibility of a normal transition which is important. It's pretty standard when there's a clear winner. They're supposed to cater for a leader who is childish to concede. If it wasn't called for Biden, it would be just another conspiracy about election fraud.

VinLieger · 15-11-2020 11:16am

Hunky Monster wrote: »

That's the very definition of playing politics.

Wow.

No its not.... all they said was they wouldn't be seeking authorization for it until middle to late November.

Hunky Monster wrote: »

I agree with you but if the announcement came in a few months time when Biden is in he would get ALL the credit.

I just find it strange it was announced days after the election.

Only if it was a US funded vaccine which Pfizers is not

jamule · 15-11-2020 11:48pm

can they stop him playing golf or twittering, not sure he is doing fook all else.

Brussels Sprout · 16-11-2020 10:59am

jamule wrote: »

can they stop him playing golf or twittering, not sure he is doing fook all else.

At this stage I have zero problems with him playing golf. He can't do any damage out there. Retweeting election fraud conspiracy theories is another matter though.

jaykay74 · 16-11-2020 1:07pm

Girly Gal wrote: »

The Pharma industry were backing Biden over Trump as it would be more beneficial for them. The Trump administration had targeted drug company prices so delaying the announcement a few days so as not to give Trump any chance to gain from it was a shred move. Pfizer would also be fairly aware if a competitor was close to announcing a breakthrough vaccine. I'm not aware of other companies making any vaccine breakthrough announcements since Pfizer did. It may well have been coincidental, but, the timing is very convenient.

Well, Moderna have made their big vaccine announcement today claiming 95% immunity. But you think Pfizer just sat on their 90% news until after the election. :pac:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/16/moderna-covid-vaccine-candidate-almost-95-effective-trials-show

PhilOssophy · 16-11-2020 2:55pm

jaykay74 wrote: »

Well, Moderna have made their big vaccine announcement today claiming 95% immunity. But you think Pfizer just sat on their 90% news until after the election. :pac:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/16/moderna-covid-vaccine-candidate-almost-95-effective-trials-show

I said this last week - if Pfizer were sitting on it and Moderna or J&J had beaten them to the announcement, they would have been sickened!

mayordenis · 16-11-2020 4:50pm

Also important that Pfizer got that out ASAP as Moderna on the face of it have higher efficacy and a vaccine that's not as difficult from a logistics perspective - so, if Moderna had have beaten them to the punch everyone would have been saying 'piss off Pfizer, you're late and vaccine is cat'.

looksee · 16-11-2020 5:12pm

That 95% effective is based on a sample of 95 people, so don't get too excited. Pfizer's wasn't much different mind.

VinLieger · 16-11-2020 5:17pm

looksee wrote: »

That 95% effective is based on a sample of 95 people, so don't get too excited. Pfizer's wasn't much different mind.

Thats completely incorrect, there were 12000 people in the test, tbh i think youve literally read the data completely wrong as the 95 people who contracted Covid were in the Placebo group.

looksee · 16-11-2020 5:41pm

VinLieger wrote: »

Thats completely incorrect, there were 12000 people in the test, tbh i think youve literally read the data completely wrong as the 95 people who contracted Covid were in the Placebo group.

Yes, sorry, I didn't read it, I heard it on the radio while driving and obviously picked it up wrong.

L1011 · 16-11-2020 5:48pm

Modernas group was 30k, roughly 15k placebo and 15k active I believe; Pfizers was 38k active and 5k placebo unless I've been reading the details wrong

These are both MASSIVE trials.

endacl · 16-11-2020 5:53pm

At noon on January 20th, Trump will become subject to the same rules of conduct as the rest of us on Bookface, Twatter, and all the rest. He'll have his posting privileges revoked shortly thereafter, and will fade from relevance.

VinLieger · 16-11-2020 6:28pm

endacl wrote: »

At noon on January 20th, Trump will become subject to the same rules of conduct as the rest of us on Bookface, Twatter, and all the rest. He'll have his posting privileges revoked shortly thereafter, and will fade from relevance.

Yup id love to get odds on how soon it takes for him to be banned from all of them, expect immediate claims of censorship and him shouting about starting his own versions

Capt'n Midnight · 22-11-2020 5:37pm

jamule wrote: »

can they stop him playing golf or twittering, not sure he is doing fook all else.

as a private citizen he falls under the normal rules so likely to get banned

Also by all accounts he cheats at golf.

El_Duderino 09 · 22-11-2020 8:07pm

Girly Gal wrote: »

Of course Trump should have conceded, but, the idea you're pushing is that he'll be dragged out of office., which won't happen. At some point in the next few weeks he'll concede to save face. At that point he'll have already stoked up his fan base and made Biden's transition as difficult as he can....

I don’t think he will need to be dragged out of office. I think, it it were left up to him, he wouldn’t leave at all. I think he’s aiming for a very long shot but he is very definitely attempting to subvert the election. Just yesterday he had the Michigan republican heads in Washington to ask them to arrange to just not give the electoral college votes to Biden. This is unprecedented. It’s not comparable to other losing candidates and their transitions.

While he is definitely trying to subvert the election and stay in power, it’s a very long shot but that’s certainly what he’s aiming for.

El_Duderino 09 · 22-11-2020 8:12pm

looksee wrote: »

That 95% effective is based on a sample of 95 people, so don't get too excited. Pfizer's wasn't much different mind.

No it wasn’t. They had a sample of tens of thousands where half were given the vaccine and half were given a placebo. The way they judge the effectiveness is to wait until a hundred people of that sample get the virus and then see how many were in the vaccine vs placebo groups. In this case 95% were in the control group. So the sample wasn’t 95 people. It was tens of thousands.

Can Trump be stopped?

Comments