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

ohnonotgmail

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

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_

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

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

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

Important date today

robinph

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

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

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

ohnonotgmail

everlast75 wrote: »

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

perhaps he means this sort of troupe?

Carfacemandog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carfacemandog

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

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

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.

eagle eye

robinph wrote:

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.

Please remove the protections, no where for Trump to post his crap and nowhere for the less intelligent to get drawn into ridiculous stuff.
No social media websites like Facebook and Twitter would make the world a better place I think.

robinph

Thanks, I had remembered the protections the wrong way round in that it would stop platforms moderating content. The end result for Trump though is exactly the same, Twitter would cease to exist and so therefore would Trump.

He's completely oblivious to anything that he does and what impact any choices he might have on anyone else, or even in this case what it would do to him. Someone is doing something he doesn't like, so hit out at the someone whilst ignoring the fact that someone is the reason he exists. Reminds me of the newspaper cartoons of Brexit UK sawing off a tree branch that they are sitting on.

Timberrrrrrrr

Carfacemandog wrote: »

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.

Look at the 10 second mark onwards, you can clearly see the outline

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkghtyxZ6r

MeMen2_MoRi_

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?

One instance would be that he seemed fine with lockdowns, like I mentioned previous the whole liberate Michigan and the other states then came about..

I'm fine with the listing of his wrongs and they should not be forgotten etc at the same time there has to be instances of him listening to Dr fauci (sp).

Also, I'd retract the "at the start", my timeline of 2020 is fcuked, I even tried to finish work an hour early yesterday lol.. I'd say it was before the whole inject/UV pressing breifing disaster that rocked him to his core of his own stupidity at what he said. After this he completely downed tools, that train wreck is still in motion.

sydthebeat

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.

pretty sure those 2 posters turned out to be the same person

mcmoustache

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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

If only.

ohnonotgmail

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Look at the 10 second mark onwards, you can clearly see the outline

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkghtyxZ6r

video doesn't work. is it the wrestling one?

ohnonotgmail

robinph wrote: »

Thanks, I had remembered the protections the wrong way round in that it would stop platforms moderating content. The end result for Trump though is exactly the same, Twitter would cease to exist and so therefore would Trump.

He's completely oblivious to anything that he does and what impact any choices he might have on anyone else, or even in this case what it would do to him. Someone is doing something he doesn't like, so hit out at the someone whilst ignoring the fact that someone is the reason he exists. Reminds me of the newspaper cartoons of Brexit UK sawing off a tree branch that they are sitting on.

i'm not sure twitter would cease to exist entirely but it would certainly be a much worse place than it already is. Can you imagine what this place would like as a free for all? it would be a thousand times worse than that.

robinph

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i'm not sure twitter would cease to exist entirely but it would certainly be a much worse place than it already is. Can you imagine what this place would like as a free for all? it would be a thousand times worse than that.

If you remove the option for Twitter to moderate content then they will just delete it instead. But if it's also not possible for Twitter to delete content then nobody is going to host content from other people and the internet disappears in a puff of logic. If you can't host other peoples content then everyone has to be their own host, but you also then have the problem of the network itself and if they are to be held responsible for transmitting questionable content and internet service providers also cease to exist if they are going to be held responsible for your content.

ohnonotgmail

robinph wrote: »

If you remove the option for Twitter to moderate content then they will just delete it instead. But if it's also not possible for Twitter to delete content then nobody is going to host content from other people and the internet disappears in a puff of logic. If you can't host other peoples content then everyone has to be their own host, but you also then have the problem of the network itself and if they are to be held responsible for transmitting questionable content and internet service providers also cease to exist if they are going to be held responsible for your content.

well no. If they dont moderate AT ALL they are simply hosts and are not liable for the content cf the Compuserve case. Deleting would count as moderating. If they do moderate then they are responsible for all content as they are then a publisher.

robinph

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well no. If they dont moderate AT ALL they are simply hosts and are not liable for the content cf the Compuserve case. Deleting would count as moderating. If they do moderate then they are responsible for all content as they are then a publisher.

But he wants them to be liable for the content and at the same time not able to moderate it, which is never going to happen. That is why the regulation allegedly "created" the Internet as it meant people could provide hosting services to others and not be responsible for the content others created (to a certain point).