Who thinks Trump will win?

Achebe

Achebe wrote: »

Fair enough Pete. He suggested we should inject it. That's far more rational.

“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.”

Later, Trump clarified his comments after a reporter asked Bryan whether disinfectants could actually be injected into COVID-19 patients.

“It wouldn’t be through injections, almost a cleaning and sterilization of an area. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t work, but it certainly has a big effect if it’s on a stationary object.”


Does he really suggest we should inject bleach, like you've stated? Because all I see is him talking about if only we could do something to clear out the lungs.

whomitconcerns

[Deleted User] wrote: »

“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.”

Later, Trump clarified his comments after a reporter asked Bryan whether disinfectants could actually be injected into COVID-19 patients.

“It wouldn’t be through injections, almost a cleaning and sterilization of an area. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t work, but it certainly has a big effect if it’s on a stationary object.”


Does he really suggest we should inject bleach, like you've stated? Because all I see is him talking about if only we could do something to clear out the lungs.

Em... Yes he does.. Just as you quoted..

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[/

Of course he clarified later that, that's not what he meant. But the damage was already done. That's how he works.

Say something bombastic and crazy or untrue. Then later, quieter say, "that's not what he meant though"

"you’re going to have to use medical doctors with"

It might barely pass as English but you have to sacrifice an awful lot of your self-respect to pretend Trump suggested that we go injecting ourselves with bleach.

relax carry on

I wonder are the Trump die hards here representative of the bulk of people who will vote for Trump? How many of those who vote for him will be true devotees of Donnie and believe home to be their Messiah? But how many will vote for him because in the broken political system of the US, they can't vote for anyone other than a Republican despite knowing what Trump is/represents.

Silentcorner

relax carry on wrote: »

I wonder are the Trump die hards here representative of the bulk of people who will vote for Trump? How many of those who vote for him will be true devotees of Donnie and believe home to be their Messiah? But how many will vote for him because in the broken political system of the US, they can't vote for anyone other than a Republican despite knowing what Trump is/represents.

Did it ever enter your head, that the state of the Democrat Party and their behaviour has anything to do with the fact that more and more people can actually swallow Trump's obvious flaws...

Pa ElGrande

relax carry on wrote: »

I wonder are the Trump die hards here representative of the bulk of people who will vote for Trump? How many of those who vote for him will be true devotees of Donnie and believe home to be their Messiah? But how many will vote for him because in the broken political system of the US, they can't vote for anyone other than a Republican despite knowing what Trump is/represents.

Lets look at this from the other side:

I wonder are the Biden die-hards here representative of the bulk of people who will vote for Biden? How many of those who vote for him will be true devotees of Joe and believe home to be their Messiah? But how many will vote for him because in the broken political system of the US, they can't vote for anyone other than a Democrat despite knowing what Biden is/represents.

Then you might consider the previous administration (Obama), the one that dropped more bombs than the preceding administration (Bush), supported the Yemen invasion, supported ISIS to overthrow Assad, Afghanistan, destroyed Libya, put journalists in prison and cleaned up Wall Street. Obama played golf, the Obamas enriched themselves via book sales, after dinner speeches, seats on boards, bought property on the coast.

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

Yeah, you can say that's a "broken political system" and laugh at the Americans while overlooking we are part of the European Union and our president is chosen for us, we don't get a say in the matter. We in Ireland voted the wrong way not once but twice and were told to go back and do it again and we complied. EU states are not against militarism either under the auspices of NATO or EUFOR have been involved in foreign adventures.

Danzy

relax carry on wrote: »

I wonder are the Trump die hards here representative of the bulk of people who will vote for Trump? How many of those who vote for him will be true devotees of Donnie and believe home to be their Messiah? But how many will vote for him because in the broken political system of the US, they can't vote for anyone other than a Republican despite knowing what Trump is/represents.

It's like Labour losing in Britain.

Areas where hatred of the Tories was almost culturally engrained turned out for them because where Labour has gone and what it became.

namloc1980

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Yeah, you can say that's a "broken political system" and laugh at the Americans while overlooking we are part of the European Union and our president is chosen for us, we don't get a say in the matter. We in Ireland voted the wrong way not once but twice and were told to go back and do it again and we complied. EU states are not against militarism either under the auspices of NATO or EUFOR have been involved in foreign adventures.

The EU is not a singular federal state like the US. It's a supranational entity and is incomparable to the US. The European Commission is the administrative arm of the EU, what benefit would there be in electing a head of it? There are already nominated by the elected heads of state and confirmed by the elected European parliament. In a direct election it would almost certainly be a German candidate who'd win each time or a French candidate. Whereas Ursula Von Der Leyen is the first German commission president since the 1960s under the current system.

Timberrrrrrrr

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Lets look at this from the other side:

I wonder are the Biden die-hards here representative of the bulk of people who will vote for Biden? How many of those who vote for him will be true devotees of Joe and believe home to be their Messiah? But how many will vote for him because in the broken political system of the US, they can't vote for anyone other than a Democrat despite knowing what Biden is/represents.

Then you might consider the previous administration (Obama), the one that dropped more bombs than the preceding administration (Bush), supported the Yemen invasion, supported ISIS to overthrow Assad, Afghanistan, destroyed Libya, put journalists in prison and cleaned up Wall Street. Obama played golf, the Obamas enriched themselves via book sales, after dinner speeches, seats on boards, bought property on the coast.

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

Yeah, you can say that's a "broken political system" and laugh at the Americans while overlooking we are part of the European Union and our president is chosen for us, we don't get a say in the matter. We in Ireland voted the wrong way not once but twice and were told to go back and do it again and we complied. EU states are not against militarism either under the auspices of NATO or EUFOR have been involved in foreign adventures.

And on the flip side of that

Then you might consider the Trump administration, the one that dropped more bombs than the preceding administration but stopped reporting on the drone strikes (this is still in effect, why's that?

supports the Yemen invasion by propping up Saudi with massive arms sales,

laughed at journalists being beaten up

Obama played golf but Trump has done more golfing in his first term than Obama ever did,

Trump enriched himself by using his resorts for his golfing and making the secret service pay double for the rooms.

seats on boards? Trump has put most of his closest family into whitehouse positions

Carfacemandog

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Like I said, absurd to make comparisons between the two and then claim that the diluting of the stats in such fashion makes the case you appear to think it does and my citing of the 60 million wasn't to say Obama did a bad job by the way, but in fact to show that he hadn't done this amazing job you appear to think he did with regards to preventing its spread.

You might want to show where I called it an amazing job in 2009 with N1H1 rather than a simply better performance than we have seen in 2020 with the disaster that has been covid-19, because you appear to be projecting about your seeming inability to accept Trump as anything short of infallible.

4% of global deaths in 2008 vs over 20% in 2020 - it is what it is, which is a horrendous performance on this issue from the Trump administration. And to think, only a few months ago he was bragging about 60,000 rather than the 200,000+ that have now died. This from the guy who insisted Obama resign over 2 deaths.

If only Trump and his supporters held himself to the same standards he and they hold others, which we know will never happen.

You mean like this when they were trying to suggest that President Trump's focus on the Coronavirus wasn't warranted and was motivated by racism:

No, I mean like when he encouraged his supporters to take to arms in protest of protective measures being put in places by states, while also holding potential super spreader events like the rally that likely killed Herman Cain. And all this from the supposed leader who in his own words "accepts no responsibility".

Just because you infer something from someone's words and actions doesn't mean that it was justified to do so, and much of the above is you doing just that. As for ignoring Fauci":

Yeah, some really cryptic quotes from Trump here on the matters I mentioned:

Undermining and criticising Fauci: "I disagree with him. You know, Dr Fauci said ‘don’t wear masks’ and now he says ‘wear them’. And you know, he’s said numerous things: ‘Don’t close off China. Don’t ban China.’... And I did it anyway. I sort of didn’t listen to my experts and I banned China.”

Railing against states imposing lockdown measures and caloing for armed protest: see the 'liberate' tweets.

Peddling unproven measures no.1 - disinfectant: "And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning? So it'd be interesting to check that."

Peddling unproven measures no. 2 - lights: "So, supposing 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 of 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."

Peddling unproven measures no. 3 - hydroxychloroquine: "It’s worked unbelievably, it’s a powerful drug on malaria. And there are signs that it works on [coronavirus], some very strong signs. ... But we don’t have time to go and say, gee, let’s take a couple of years and test it out. And let’s go and test with the test tubes and the laboratories. We don’t have time."

Tony EH

Silentcorner wrote: »

the state of the Democrat Party

This is all the Trumps fanbois have at the end of the day.

"But....*insert Democrat here*"

Pa ElGrande

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And on the flip side of that

Put yourself in the position of an American voter. How is the current alternative: Biden, looking by those standards? He has the Neocons on board, the old party Republicans who bought you the gulf wars are on board. Did I mention keeping it in the family (Hunter Biden), The alternative last time out was Hillary Clinton (The Clinton Foundation - her daughter Chelsea does well).


The difference between the two - one side wants to actively impose their ideology and take away constitutional freedoms. You can see that clearly in one side when outcome does not maintain them in power they want to change the rules. As an example they changed the rules for senate voting from quorum to simple majority, and now they are unhappy with the outcome when a supreme count vacancy comes up and with the aid of the media resorted to unscrupulous behaviour against Kavanaugh before the previous judge was appointed by the senate.

Would you vote for either party or stay home?

namloc1980

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Did I mention keeping it in the family (Hunter Biden),

Trumpists like yourself who bring up nepotism have absolutely zero credibility.

Timberrrrrrrr

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Put yourself in the position of an American voter. How is the current alternative: Biden, looking by those standards? He has the Neocons on board, the old party Republicans who bought you the gulf wars are on board. Did I mention keeping it in the family (Hunter Biden), The alternative last time out was Hillary Clinton (The Clinton Foundation - her daughter Chelsea does well).


The difference between the two - one side wants to actively impose their ideology and take away constitutional freedoms. You can see that clearly in one side when outcome does not maintain them in power they want to change the rules. As an example they changed the rules for senate voting from quorum to simple majority, and now they are unhappy with the outcome when a supreme count vacancy comes up and with the aid of the media resorted to unscrupulous behaviour against Kavanaugh before the previous judge was appointed by the senate.

Would you vote for either party or stay home?

Hasn't Trump said he wants another four years (third term) hasn't he refused to answer wether he will leave office with a peaceful transition of power?

As for keeping it in the family? Are you kidding me????

Thinkingaboutit

The same ropey opinion polls as for HRC, and Joe Biden is worse, barely able to read from an autocue. BLM burning cities under the instructions of their white man leader Shaun King (a male Rachel Dozael with white parents and a BS story about an affair) whose instructions come from certain interests. One of their martyrs was a paedophile, the other an abuser of women, both trying to attack Kyle the Commie Killer protecting the town where he worked. The COVID deaths in the US, assuming the stats are accurate (either way, for instance Belgium didn't count nursing home deaths) owe something to a refusal to use hydroxychloroquine, which was only discounted in a faked study. I suppose big pharma can't make billions from it too.

POTUS has a lead I think. Far too many polls are spurious and seek to steer voter intentions. Obviously the more important matter is to carry a plurality of Primary votes. HRC did famously get more in the popular vote, but that is not the US system.

I suspect the USCCB hope, and maybe pray, for a Biden victory and a de-facto Kamala Harris Presidency. She was very reluctant to prosecute perv priests. Save them money, and save their pals from prison.

Achebe

[Deleted User] wrote: »

"you’re going to have to use medical doctors with"

It might barely pass as English but you have to sacrifice an awful lot of your self-respect to pretend Trump suggested that we go injecting ourselves with bleach.

Never inject bleach at home. Always get medical supervision.

gizmo

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

The difference between the two - one side wants to actively impose their ideology and take away constitutional freedoms. You can see that clearly in one side when outcome does not maintain them in power they want to change the rules. As an example they changed the rules for senate voting from quorum to simple majority, and now they are unhappy with the outcome when a supreme count vacancy comes up and with the aid of the media resorted to unscrupulous behaviour against Kavanaugh before the previous judge was appointed by the senate.

This is incorrect and is even stated in your linked wiki article...

In November 2013, Senate Democrats led by Harry Reid used the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote rule on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments, but not for the Supreme Court. In April 2017, Senate Republicans led by Mitch McConnell extended the nuclear option to Supreme Court nominations in order to end debate on the nomination of Neil Gorsuch.

The important thing then to consider is why did Reid push to eliminate the 60-vote requirement to end a filibuster against these specific nominees. The reasoning was covered extensively at the time. Despite the Democrat's controlling the Senate, Senate Republicans led by McConnell had engaged in a considerably heightened campaign to filibuster many of Obama's nominees across both the executive and judicial branches. However it was their filibustering of the three nominations to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit which sparked the move by Reid. It didn't help that the argument from Republicans at the time was utter nonsense, they claimed that the caseload of the court did not warrant the appointment of the judges. Unsurprisingly, this rationale did not continue into the next administration.

This of course changed when the Republicans did regain control of the Senate in 2015 and if you want to see utterly naked partisanship at play, take a look at McConnell appearing on Hannity late last year where he looks back on the period of obstruction that followed.

The tit for tat between the two parties has been going on for at least three presidencies though. You can read about the appointments, disagreements between the two parties and threats to invoke the nuclear option by Senate Republicans during the Bush administration here.

NSAman

My opinion, go into ANY larger city and see what BLM and the “liberals” have done. The Dems have destroyed city centres, which I’d already were no suffering enough due to out of town malls, are completely boarded up and depressing places now.

The lack of condemnation of this criminal behaviour, the hand tying of the police in many cases, the destruction of businesses that have been trying to save downtowns for decades, leave a nasty taste in the mouth of community leaders and businesses alike.

Many who would have voted Dem are in a quandry now. Is this the future?

I am not advocating anyone. I personally think these are the two least acceptable candidates (again)!

White and rich flight is happening right now (again). Houses are being bought up in days (when it used to be months) for the asking price and more. City people are moving into safe (usually conservative) areas. If you don’t think this is true, just look at the cost of building in the states. It has doubled for materials and tradespeople much of it due to this.

Politics and the political dynasties, have destroyed this country. Neighbours have turned against neighbours and in many cases family against family, over what? Power and money!

I fear for America, it’s going down a dark path. Not just Trump has caused this but also the whole Democratic game playing.

dwayneshintzy

Silentcorner wrote: »

Did it ever enter your head, that the state of the Democrat Party and their behaviour has anything to do with the fact that more and more people can actually swallow Trump's obvious flaws...

The Democratic Party gets more votes than Republicans. It was true of the mid terms in 2018, it was true of the Presidential election in 2016. Whether Trump wins the Presidency or not, it will also be true of 2020.

The Rock has endorsed Biden and Harris. Probably one of the more significant celebrity endorsements that they could get.

https://twitter.com/TheRock/status/1310198847835000834?s=09

Jimbob1977

In my own estimation, Trump needs a few things to happen:

o Resounding victories for Trump in the debates. If Biden doesn't rise to the bait, Trump may struggle to land that knockout blow.

o Continuation of protests and violence in US cities. Thus portraying Trump as the "law and order" President who is trying to help Democratic mayors and governors.

o Some kind of Covid-19 miracle cure. Unlikely.

At the moment, I'd say Biden is slightly ahead.

But Hilary Clinton was supposed to win in a canter in 2016.

Outlaw Pete

Can't wait for the debate. If Biden comes out with a clanger like this on the night he's toast.


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1310319725747073026

Curious, you're ignoring the NYT piece on Trump's taxes, Pete.

Timberrrrrrrr

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Curious, you're ignoring the NYT piece on Trump's taxes, Pete.

Ignoring it and hoping it will go away.

Pretty much like #IMPOTUS and his hundreds of millions that he owns out.

The Floyd p

Deleted User wrote: »

Curious, you're ignoring the NYT piece on Trump's taxes, Pete.

It's the NYT, so it's not true/a hit piece/lamestream media etc.

Same old tired pony.

dark crystal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Can't wait for the debate. If Biden comes out with a clanger like this on the night he's toast.

I think he should open with this:

https://twitter.com/cmclymer/status/1310344598724710401

astrofool

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Can't wait for the debate. If Biden comes out with a clanger like this on the night he's toast.


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1310319725747073026

That's either a misread, or he's making a joke, not sure which, wouldn't classify it as a clanger, UNLESS you think Biden really thinks he's been in the Senate for 180 years?

Outlaw Pete

Deleted User wrote: »

Curious, you're ignoring the NYT piece on Trump's taxes, Pete.

Not ignoring anything.

Like I said the other day, between now and the election the lies will just get bigger and bolder, and they will. You were all frothing at the mouth over the recent Atlantic piece and now that's fizzled out and shown to be the nothing burger I said it was, y'all have moved on to the next nothing burger.

Don't you all get tired of this crap? Don't you all think that non-liberals know what the game is at this stage? Act all shocked, pearl clutch, and repeat the same old tired nonsense about how this time it's different and this latest scandal will surely be his undoing but just like PussyGrabbingGate, Russia-Russia-Russia, the Pee-Tape madness, SharpieGate, QuidProQuoGate and all that BS scandals in between, this too will be shown to be the fat empty nothing burger that it is.

But before that, the left and all their minions will milk it for all it's worth. Which is not much as real Americans have more to be worried about than if Donald Trump's taxes are in order, given they have just witnessed the radical leftists pushing false race baiting narratives for the last six months, spurred on by the democratic party, resulting in cities being destroyed by scum too stupid to realize that they were being fed a line and too spoiled to care. Real America will make itself heard Nov 3rd.

The Floyd p

The Floyd p wrote: »

It's the NYT, so it's not true/a hit piece/lamestream media etc.

Same old tired pony.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Shock horror. The New York Slimes have a anonymous sources hit piece on Trump mere weeks from the Presidential election again.

Not a bad prediction truth be told.

dark crystal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Not ignoring anything.

Like I said the other day, between now and the election the lies will just get bigger and bolder, and they will. You were all frothing at the mouth over the recent Atlantic piece and now that's fizzled out and shown to be the nothing burger I said it was, y'all have moved on to the next nothing burger.

I'm curious, why doesn't Trump sue all these publications, if indeed they are spreading demonstrable lies?