Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

Quin_Dub

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

All true but I would have thought that his best move would be to let someone else such as the head an organisation like the HHS or the CDC be the face of the state's response to the Coronavirus outbreak. It makes no sense for him to humiliate himself in an election year.

You are correct - A normal politician would do that , but he's not normal..

He is incapable of letting someone else speak for him , especially when it comes to him and his personal fortunes (literally and figuratively).

If the economy tanks , it impacts him personally (in terms of his election chances) , so his narcissism forces him to personally intervene.. He can't help himself..

ancapailldorcha

Quin_Dub wrote: »

You are correct - A normal politician would do that , but he's not normal..

He is incapable of letting someone else speak for him , especially when it comes to him and his personal fortunes (literally and figuratively).

If the economy tanks , it impacts him personally (in terms of his election chances) , so his narcissism forces him to personally intervene.. He can't help himself..

True but is anyone impressed by this? There's no political gain in pretending the WHO is inflating the figure for the amount of deaths.

Surely he has advisors who could help him navigate this if he really must impose himself.

Quin_Dub

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

True but is anyone impressed by this? There's no political gain in pretending the WHO is inflating the figure for the amount of deaths.

Surely he has advisors who could help him navigate this if he really must impose himself.

Realistically - Those that love him won't mind , those that hate him will still hate him.

Personally I think it will negatively impact him in the middle ground, but as I said he can't help himself.

Any advisor that tries to tell Trump not to speak won't be an advisor for long...

kowloon

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It makes no sense for him to humiliate himself in an election year.

In his own eyes, I'm not sure he has ever humiliated himself. Every second of air time he gets he most likely considers another chance to show everyone he is the smartest and has the best words.

Quin_Dub

kowloon wrote: »

In his own eyes, I'm not sure he has ever humiliated himself. Every second of air time he gets he most likely considers another chance to show everyone he is the smartest and has the best words.

Absolutely - It's a feature of Narcissism , he has never made a mistake ,he is always perfect and anything that happens that isn't perfect is absolutely categorically someone elses fault..

You can see it in his verbal ticks - He never corrects a verbal flub , he just moves on like he meant to say it and drives on..

For example , earlier this week during the press conference about the Taliban peace deal he was saying something about all the money spent on the war thus far..

He meant to say "Treasury" but said "Treasures" instead..

A normal person would correct themselves , but he doesn't, he paused and so said "Treasures......And Treasury" .

He does this all the time , but his brain won't let him correct himself for a simple perfectly normal error in speech , so he tries to pretend he meant it..

duploelabs

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Absolutely - It's a feature of Narcissism , he has never made a mistake ,he is always perfect and anything that happens that isn't perfect is absolutely categorically someone elses fault..

You can see it in his verbal ticks - He never corrects a verbal flub , he just moves on like he meant to say it and drives on..

For example , earlier this week during the press conference about the Taliban peace deal he was saying something about all the money spent on the war thus far..

He meant to say "Treasury" but said "Treasures" instead..

A normal person would correct themselves , but he doesn't, he paused and so said "Treasures......And Treasury" .

He does this all the time , but his brain won't let him correct himself for a simple perfectly normal error in speech , so he tries to pretend he meant it..

Or sometimes the brain just downs tools, and the ego takes over, then you get Oranges

https://youtu.be/qUPsNgmXR7M

ryansmith171

donald trump tweets are so rubbish how is he president

Englo

Manic Moran wrote: »

You can't argue with the budget figures. )

Can you explain this, then?

Texas has closed 750 since 2012.

542 of these closures have come in the 50 areas with the biggest black and Latino populations, despite these areas increasing by 2.5mn in population.

By contrast, the 50 areas with the whitest populations have only seen 34 closures - just 6% of the closures in the minority areas - and this is despite a decrease in population of 13,000 in these areas.

Given that voter suppression is literally official GOP funded policy by way of REDMAP, which they have spent more on than it would have cost to keep these polling stations open,hiwncsn you even pretend that this is anything other than a point blank attack on democracy?

pixelburp

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

True but is anyone impressed by this? There's no political gain in pretending the WHO is inflating the figure for the amount of deaths.

Surely he has advisors who could help him navigate this if he really must impose himself.

I think many are. I remember a quote from Terry Pratchett about, now that I recall the character, a very Trump esque leader. To paraphrase: it's not about whether you're right or wrong, but if you're certain. Trump talks utter horsedung, and maybe some supporters know this deep down, but he carries it off with certainty and bravado that quells the doubt and kinda sweeps you in. Witness his bold correction of an actual doctor who pointed out the lethality statistics for Corvid. Quin_Dub is right that who wouldn't allow doubt, so he simply certain of How Things Are. Reality or expertise doesn't figure. And I think for some people, that's what they want in a leader. Sureness, earned or not, someone who just decided and goes for it. Then in your mind you can pretend the world is black and white.

Manic Moran

Englo wrote: »

Can you explain this, then?

Texas has closed 750 since 2012.

542 of these closures have come in the 50 areas with the biggest black and Latino populations, despite these areas increasing by 2.5mn in population.

By contrast, the 50 areas with the whitest populations have only seen 34 closures - just 6% of the closures in the minority areas - and this is despite a decrease in population of 13,000 in these areas.

Given that voter suppression is literally official GOP funded policy by way of REDMAP, which they have spent more on than it would have cost to keep these polling stations open,hiwncsn you even pretend that this is anything other than a point blank attack on democracy?

I cannot.

I can only point to what the figures are. The budgets are available on the county websites. The fact that Harris is using outdated machines in need of upgrade is on the county website. The county budgets are made by the county commissioners who are elected by the voters of that county. Currently the Harris County Commissioners Court consists of three Democrats and two Republicans, this also is public knowledge, easily verified.

If you can explain to me how the GOP can control the budget for the Harris County elections division, regardless of what the GOP or REDMAP position is on the matter, I'm all ears.

Also, I presume you're citing this article. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/02/texas-polling-sites-closures-voting
Why not give a balanced assessment by quoting the middle of the article?
The rush of poll closures in Texas cannot be attributed to any one policy. Just over half of the closures are part of a push toward centralized, countywide polling places, called “vote centers”, which exist in almost a third of US states. Under countywide voting schemes, voters are no longer assigned to a polling place in their local precinct and can instead cast their ballot at any polling location in the county.

Voting rights advocates and both Republican and Democratic leaders have largely been in favor of vote centers because they can make it more convenient to vote – by allowing people to vote near work, for instance – and because they can reduce the number of people whose votes are thrown out because they went to the wrong polling place.

But Texas state law allows a county that transitions to vote centers to operate with half as many locations as they would otherwise have needed under a traditional precinct-based system.

When deciding whether to close a polling station, elected officials typically consider how many people used it, as well as factors like public transportation accessibility. Some elections administrators who agree on the importance of protecting minority voters warn against assuming that closures are automatically a bad thing.

Foxtrol

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

True but is anyone impressed by this? There's no political gain in pretending the WHO is inflating the figure for the amount of deaths.

Surely he has advisors who could help him navigate this if he really must impose himself.

He believes he has the power to impact the markets and to be fair he has done so quite regularly during his presidency.

His whole life has basically been making things seem rosier than they are and given his wealth, lack of shame, and pure dumb luck he has usually landed on his feet.

He has repeatedly spoken about 'a miracle' that will make the virus go away and that is was he hopes will happen but it isnt looking likely. US aren't testing near enough people and when they eventually do panic will set in and the market will dive even further. Worst case for him is that the core of his base start getting sick, as many are prime candidates to have bad outcomes.

Toeuptony

pixelburp wrote: »

Then in your mind you can pretend the world is black and white.

Their world is more white than black in fairness!

Midlife

briany wrote: »

What the hell is liberal or conservative these days? Liberal or conservative in what ways? Socially liberal/conservative? Economically liberal/conservative?

It seems to me that, in popular thought, those labels appear to revolve around whether one thinks that, say, Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner is a bit of a muppet. It's micro-liberalism and micro-conservatism. People have these little pet issues they're invested in and give themselves or others a broad definition based off of that.

What's funny is that in America you have all these people banging on about freedom, yet define themselves as conservative. Surely if you believe in freedom, you're a kind of a liberal. Y'know liberty....freedom? Sounds like a synonym to me.

It's basically that some people are only capable of linear thought with no nuance. There is Trump and there is the opposite (Liberal)

Their political analysis basically looks like the attached.

It's oversimplified because of a very basic view of the world. Perhaps a lack of capacity.

spacecoyote

Foxtrol wrote: »

He believes he has the power to impact the markets and to be fair he has done so quite regularly during his presidency.

His whole life has basically been making things seem rosier than they are and given his wealth, lack of shame, and pure dumb luck he has usually landed on his feet.

He has repeatedly spoken about 'a miracle' that will make the virus go away and that is was he hopes will happen but it isnt looking likely. US aren't testing near enough people and when they eventually do panic will set in and the market will dive even further. Worst case for him is that the core of his base start getting sick, as many are prime candidates to have bad outcomes.

I'm amazed one of the Dems hasnt picked up km some of the Trump admin statements on it.

Basically, don't worry about it, it's only killing off elderly & sick people.

In other words, who gives a sh1t about elderly or sick people.

The elderly are generally Republican core. Biden should be pushing on these statements

Water John

Biden or Sanders should leave this type or direct take down of Trump to others. They need to be themselves constantly sending out a positive message. Don't follow Trump into the dirt.

briany

Water John wrote: »

Biden or Sanders should leave this type or direct take down of Trump to others. They need to be themselves constantly sending out a positive message. Don't follow Trump into the dirt.

Yeah, I understand what you're saying, but it seems to me that the net effect of being the bigger person seems to be that you just let Trump have free shots at you. Shrugging off Trump's verbal jabs is what Trump's primary opponents tried to do in 2016, and they just looked like ninnies because of it. And it makes Trump look like the smart@rse at the back of class, cracking wise, and I bet more people like that than they let on.

Rjd2

briany wrote: »

Yeah, I understand what you're saying, but it seems to me that the net effect of being the bigger person seems to be that you just let Trump have free shots at you. Shrugging off Trump's verbal jabs is what Trump's primary opponents tried to do in 2016, and they just looked like ninnies because of it. And it makes Trump look like the smart@rse at the back of class, cracking wise, and I bet more people like that than they let on.

Corbyn took the moral high ground with Boris which will probably result in Tory power for another ten years. Sanders also never took the gloves of with Biden, constantly referring to him as his friend before any soft attack, only now when its near over is he really going hard after his record regarding social security.

Go hard or go home etc.

Leroy42

With their 'go high' ideals they forgot that politics is just as much about pointing out your opponents flaws as it is pointing out how great you are.

At the end of the day, the US will be forced to pick from 1 of 2 people, either Trump or DNC. One of the reasons that HC lost was that Trump created enough doubt in enough peoples minds that HC was so bad that literally anything else was better and the only other real option was Trump.

There is no need to get nasty of go to Trumps level, but calling him out on his failed tax policies is a good start. Calling him out on the national debt, and particularly his complete inability to stick to his stated promise to get rid of it. His failure on China. His failure on Obamacare. His failure on the wall.

His bail out of the farmers which now runs at more that the car makers.

His calling white supremacists good people. His failure to provide tax returns, after promising to do so. His failure to deal with Saudi over the journalist killing. His failure to stand up for his own security forces when face to face with Putin. His failure to get anything out of Putin at all, His failure to defend the democracy of the US.

His affairs with porn stars. His lying about payments to porn stars. His jailed lawyer. His jailed Campaign head. The revolving door of his administration. His nepotism.

aloyisious

Manic Moran wrote: »

I looked this up yesterday. Voting, here, like a lot of things, is run by each county, and the county's Dept of Elections is funded by the county commisisoners in the annual budget. For example, my county spent $12mn buying new election machines late last year. Texas is a very decentralised structure, likely resulting from the fact that the State legislature only meets three months every two years. My property taxes are some of the highest in the country, they go to the county. (No income tax in Texas, so the State doesn't get that revenue either, they're down to corporate taxes and the like)

I looked up the county budget reports for Bexar County (Where I am, in and out in ten minutes), and Harris County, (which is Houston, reporting lines of 4-5 hours in the news.) They're publicly available.

Harris county, pop about 4.5mn, put some $15mn into the elections budget, Bexar county, pop about 2mn put $25mn [Error. Actually $14mn] into its Dept of Elections.

Longer lines in Harris county vs Bexar county seem to be a natural result. I do not know the political leanings of the two county commissioners, but I suspect the result was more a matter of budget priorities than any political shenanigans.

Note that the Harris County elections division page states that it is responsible for securing and manning polling stations.
https://www.harrisvotes.com/

[Edit: That said, there seems to be some further distribution of authority. The Harris County Clerk is blaming Republicans for 'not sharing voting machines'.
https://www.click2houston.com/decision-2020/2020/03/04/harris-county-clerk-blames-gop-for-refusing-to-allow-joint-primary-causing-long-wait-times-for-voters-on-super-tuesday/

I'm not sure why the parties get a vote on where the machines go.]

[Further Edit] https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Harris-GOP-chair-opposes-Dem-county-clerk-s-13969625.php
Apparently the older machines currently in use in Harris county are not capable of being multi-party on the fly? Here in Bexar, we indicated our ballot preference to the polling site staff as per the version that the Harris clerk doesn't want, instead doing something with an ipad? However, we were able to share the machines, no matter which ballot we selected, any machine would work. The Harris County site says that they plan on upgrading their machines in use since 1998, but haven't done it yet. Or something like that.

So, in essence, there's a strong chance that the voters right to cast his/her vote may be dependant on the mindset of the county clerk in respect of the voting machinery to be used by the voter [tough **** if the voter loses out on the right to have his/her vote count in any election]. I agree with your question on why the parties get to decide on where the machines go, thought the answer is probably simple - the county etc legally have to provide the public with the machines but it doesn't instruct us on the how, leaving the choice to us. Wahay, a fixing the ballot we will go without a cry of gerrymander being raised.

briany

Rjd2 wrote: »

Corbyn took the moral high ground with Boris which will probably result in Tory power for another ten years. Sanders also never took the gloves of with Biden, constantly referring to him as his friend before any soft attack, only now when its near over is he really going hard after his record regarding social security.

Go hard or go home etc.

I think Corbyn was bunched for the election without even having said a word to Boris. Sanders/Biden still have a chance of figuring out how to nullify Trump and his mouth, but I don't think they can do that through the usual politi-speak.

briany

Leroy42 wrote: »

With their 'go high' ideals they forgot that politics is just as much about pointing out your opponents flaws as it is pointing out how great you are.

At the end of the day, the US will be forced to pick from 1 of 2 people, either Trump or DNC. One of the reasons that HC lost was that Trump created enough doubt in enough peoples minds that HC was so bad that literally anything else was better and the only other real option was Trump.

There is no need to get nasty of go to Trumps level, but calling him out on his failed tax policies is a good start. Calling him out on the national debt, and particularly his complete inability to stick to his stated promise to get rid of it. His failure on China. His failure on Obamacare. His failure on the wall.

His bail out of the farmers which now runs at more that the car makers.

His calling white supremacists good people. His failure to provide tax returns, after promising to do so. His failure to deal with Saudi over the journalist killing. His failure to stand up for his own security forces when face to face with Putin. His failure to get anything out of Putin at all, His failure to defend the democracy of the US.

His affairs with porn stars. His lying about payments to porn stars. His jailed lawyer. His jailed Campaign head. The revolving door of his administration. His nepotism.

On paper, it sounds like a slam dunk, doesn't it? The only problem is that I think we're still acting like Trump somehow tricked the American public into voting for him. Yes, I know he lost the popular vote, but he won in the system as it exists. Based on his many, many, many, (deep breath) many flaws as a traditional presidential candidate, he should have gotten no votes, or just a fraction of a percent that cranks usually get, but that didn't happen. And the only reason I can posit that he did succeed is that there was a certain receptiveness to what Trump is among the American public such that they're willing to overlook all the bad stuff that traditional politics says really ought to matter.

As we know, Trump's base is cult-like. I don't know what the undecided voters are thinking but Trump's mountain of baggage can't be escaping them. It's possible that some voters might just pick him again simply for the entertainment value, or that the like the performance of the economy under him and don't really care if he says crazy stuff on Twitter.

aloyisious

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

True but is anyone impressed by this? There's no political gain in pretending the WHO is inflating the figure for the amount of deaths.

Surely he has advisors who could help him navigate this if he really must impose himself.

His idea [based on what he says he's heard] is that WHO is not including in its figures of people surviving the virus the people he's been told about walking out of casualty depts cured of the early effects of the virus [thus cured of the virus] when they report the total number of people sickened by the virus and the percentage of those who died as a result of the virus. Ergo: if WHO include the casualty dept figure Don "knows" they have with their estimate, the cured figure would be bigger AND the death percentage figure would be smaller as a result. I have no idea who told Don about the casualty dept survivor figures.

Don doesn't do advice. I'm actually surprised that he didn't sack the doctor who butted in on him last week at a live media briefing and is still giving the briefings daily with Mike Pompeo. Its probably one of the rare times that he's yielded to an expert in any field, certainly live on TV. Edit: I've seen mention in the past while that he did contradict the doctor and haven't seen the footage of it.

listermint

aloyisious wrote: »

So, in essence, there's a strong chance that the voters right to cast his/her vote may be dependant on the mindset of the county clerk in respect of the voting machinery to be used by the voter [tough **** if the voter loses out on the right to have his/her vote count in any election]. I agree with your question on why the parties get to decide on where the machines go, thought the answer is probably simple - the county etc legally have to provide the public with the machines but it doesn't instruct us on the how, leaving the choice to us. Wahay, a fixing the ballot we will go without a cry of gerrymander being raised.

He hasn't explained the cutting of the voting rights act by this president.

He keeps pointing at budgets as some excuse gutting of voters rights across states where the GOP were coming under pressure.

Can't defend that with a straight face.

aloyisious

listermint wrote: »

He hasn't explained the cutting of the voting rights act by this president.

He keeps pointing at budgets as some excuse gutting of voters rights across states where the GOP were coming under pressure.

Can't defend that with a straight face.

I was going to wait for his reply before I asked him what is he going [as a US citizen] to do about what he sees as being wrong with the service being provided by the county and state authorities to allow him and his fellow citizens have free, reasonable and proper access to a proper working electoral voting system at ground level. When are he and the other US citizens going to kick up a stink and force the fixers out of the electoral voting system? Admitting that there is a problem is the start of the necessary repair work to enable him to get access to a decent voting system at the ground level. No pain, no gain.

aloyisious

Water John wrote: »

Biden or Sanders should leave this type or direct take down of Trump to others. They need to be themselves constantly sending out a positive message. Don't follow Trump into the dirt.

With Mike Bloomberg free from direct involvement in the race, he's free to use his considerable resources to reveal what's been kept hidden from public view by Don and his crew. Its possible that he may have connections with countries that Don sent his personal agents to seek out dirt on the Biden's and he may be able to return in kind with info on Don from countries Don also has his businesses in.

Christy42

aloyisious wrote: »

His idea [based on what he says he's heard] is that WHO is not including in its figures of people surviving the virus the people he's been told about walking out of casualty depts cured of the early effects of the virus [thus cured of the virus] when they report the total number of people sickened by the virus and the percentage of those who died as a result of the virus. Ergo: if WHO include the casualty dept figure Don "knows" they have with their estimate, the cured figure would be bigger AND the death percentage figure would be smaller as a result. I have no idea who told Don about the casualty dept survivor figures.

Don doesn't do advice. I'm actually surprised that he didn't sack the doctor who butted in on him last week at a live media briefing and is still giving the briefings daily with Mike Pompeo. Its probably one of the rare times that he's yielded to an expert in any field, certainly live on TV. Edit: I've seen mention in the past while that he did contradict the doctor and haven't seen the footage of it.

He is probably right that overall figures are underestimated due to people not needing a doctor. However that also means that far more people are official patients are out potentially spreading the disease. So still not great.


As for the voting machines. Who knows. The US seems to be the only country attempting to be a democracy that can't figure this stuff out. Either there are more incompetent people coincidentally in charge of voting in areas with more immigrants or more likely the GOP are scum and want less people voting but either way people should be up in arms about voting rights being taken away from people. The reason is not the most relevant part. The most relevant part is it is happening and should not be acceptable.

Outlaw Pete

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Just another example of his utter narcissism - He does not care about anyone or anything but himself.

His ONLY concern here is for how all of this might impact his re-election.

So he will lie and obfuscate about anything and everything that he thinks might negatively impact him. The fact that people are dying means nothing to him..

It's all about him..

What totally and utter nonsense. Trump doesn't care about anyone or anything but himself and people dying mean nothing to him? Where are you getting this crap from? You seem totally incapable of being objective about anything Trump related. What you have said in the above post is nothing short of irrational nonsense.

All Trump said was the same thing other experts have said and that is that the 3.4% figure is likely higher than what the number will turn out to be when more testing is being carried out. He wasn't questioning the WHO's math skills and as he said, his opinion is informed by conversations he's had with experts he has been around over the last number of weeks. An example of that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEmPQYq9_FA

Now, should he be speaking about what he feels the mortality rate will turn out to be? Perhaps, perhaps not, but that's Donald Trump, he says what he feels and often that may not be the thing which a President necessarily should be saying, but that doesn't therefore mean he doesn't care if people live or die. That's beyond ludicrous. It's quite clear to those not blinded by hatred that Trump is not the person you and others would like us all to believe he is.

As for whether Trump is right or wrong about the mortality rate eventually turning out to be below 1%, time as ever will tell, but whether he is right or wrong or not, there is no doubt that he was just being honest about what he believes given what he has inferred from speaking with the experts on the issue over the last while. It makes no sense whatsoever to suggest his comments were nefarious and made with an eye on November, given it would be kinda hard to hide the coronavirus mortality rate from the public between now and then I would think.

Lots to suggest though that his 1% hunch might in fact be about right given many reports which suggest that's turning out to be the case in South Korea and elsewhere:

Coronavirus: South Korea’s aggressive testing gives clues to true fatality rate

With 140,000 people tested, the country’s mortality rate is just over 0.6 per cent compared to the 3.4 per cent global average reported by the WHO
Various factors can influence this percentage, but scientists agree that all things being equal, it is more accurate when more people are tested

Within a month of confirming its first case of Covid-19 on January 20, South Korea had tested nearly 8,000 people suspected of infection with the new coronavirus that causes the disease. A little over a week later, that number had soared to 82,000 as health officials mobilised to carry out as many 10,000 tests each day.

In the United States, where the number of confirmed cases has surpassed 100, health authorities had as recently as this week tested fewer than 500 people in total, hindered by legal and technical barriers to mass screening.

That mass screening issues referenced in the article have now been addressed by the Trump administration by the way and they are also putting together financial assistance plans for those who might contract the virus but don't have health insurance.

If none of the matters to you (collective you, I know most regulars here endorse your views) then maybe it's not anything Trump is doing, or not doing, which is responsible for how you feel about him. Let's face it, no matter what he does the left will just find an angle to have a pop at him no matter. For example he just donated this last quarter's salary of $100,000 to fighting the coronavirus and of course the leftist media found a way of spinning it so they'll really spin anything he does from now to November. Three years it's been nitpick city and so why stop now I guess.

Manic Moran

aloyisious wrote: »

So, in essence, there's a strong chance that the voters right to cast his/her vote may be dependant on the mindset of the county clerk in respect of the voting machinery to be used by the voter [tough **** if the voter loses out on the right to have his/her vote count in any election]. I agree with your question on why the parties get to decide on where the machines go, thought the answer is probably simple - the county etc legally have to provide the public with the machines but it doesn't instruct us on the how, leaving the choice to us. Wahay, a fixing the ballot we will go without a cry of gerrymander being raised.

That seems a little harsh on the county clerk. I doubt the county clerk just happens to have $45mn in her pocket. (Estimated cost based on other counties) From the website, she rather wants to upgrade them.

everlast75

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

If none of the matters to you (collective you, I know most regulars here endorse your views) then maybe it's not anything Trump is doing, or not doing, which is responsible for how you feel about him. Let's face it, no matter what he does the left will just find an angle to have a pop at him no matter. For example he just donated this last quarter's salary of $100,000 to fighting the coronavirus and of course the leftist media found a way of spinning it so they'll really spin anything he does from now to November. Three years it's been nitpick city and so why stop now I guess.

Hardly a significant sum for him. Sure he paid more to silence a porn star he was having unprotected sex with.

aloyisious

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

All Trump said was the same thing other experts have said

This was probably a typo by you, objectively speaking.