Yes, Sasse only "heard" from senior White House officials who were there. In Trumpworld they will call that heresay. The senior White House officials must ID themselves to be dealt with by the Trump Terrorists. That is the world Trump is working to boil over right now.
On Parlor, McConnell must be dealt with for treason. They call him Mitch the B*tch.
Marietta Tar Heel wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
That being said, I look forward to hearing from eyewitnesses who were with Trump during the riots who can report as to his state of mind. I suspect they will be called to testify at the impeachment hearings.
Yes. It was debunked by moi last night.
Fat now has a supporter in Sally.
Marietta Tar Heel wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
I don't like left wing misinformation any more than right wing misinformation.
Earlier, someone posted video of a Trump "watch party" where the Trumps and others were supposedly watching the riots and cheering them on.
I don't remember anyone correcting the record on this thread so I'll do it now. The video in question was shot before Trump took the stage that morning. They were not watching the riots.
The whole narrative has been thoroughly debunked.
That being said, I look forward to hearing from eyewitnesses who were with Trump during the riots who can report as to his state of mind. I suspect they will be called to testify at the impeachment hearings.
Yes. It was debunked by moi last night.
You're welcome.
In fact, the person (oclocal) who argued that they were watching the assault inside the Capitol didn't even read the title or body of the CNBC(?) video he posted. It clearly stated the video was before the speech.
Budda wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
You are correct. Let’s look at the definitions.
STUPID
1a : slow of mind : OBTUSE
b : given to unintelligent decisions or acts : acting in an unintelligent or careless manner
c : lacking intelligence or reason : BRUTISH
2 : dulled in feeling or sensation : TORPID
still stupid from the sedative
3 : marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting : SENSELESS
a stupid decision
4a : lacking interest or point
a stupid event
b : VEXATIOUS, EXASPERATING
the stupid car won't start
There is too much to unpack there but as you can see it would be impossible to through a list of trumpers and not check off the stupid box because at least one these elements fits.
RACIST (this is the basic google search definition since Webster only has the definition for Racism)
adjective
prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
"we are investigating complaints about racist abuse"
noun
a person who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
"he has been targeted by vicious racists online"
I recognize I would have a harder time checking this box for the trumpers I have known, but I’m thinking by definition you are stupid if you are racist.
FP, I believe all trumpers are at least stupid.
I think it's incredibly arrogant and also some what ironic, as I find it quite unintelligent to label all trumpsters either stupid, racist or both.
Having that attitude, you completely discount how fundamentally the Democratic party have failed working class americans for decades, which quite understandably have lead to many of them becoming quite angry.
For many of them, struggling to put food on the table, it's quite reasonable to vote for a president that promises to bring jobs back for instance.
Also if you have traditional conservative values, like being pro-life, and that issue being extremely important to you, you might also overlook other flaws and vote for the candidate that you think will fight for your cause. (I'd argue a consequence of being pro-life is some what misogynistic, but in itself it is not racist or stupid)
There are obvously other reasons as well.
1) Nope, all Trumpers are stupid. Go back and read my point #2 above. There it is in black and white, clear as crystal. You STOLE fizzy lifting drinks...
2) I AGREE that the Democratic Party has ignored the working class...took they for granted for decades. I have said so several times. THAT though does NOT absolve people for voting for that anti-American criminal menace.
3) One-issue voters who don't look carefully at the candidate are stupid. Sorry. He is a serial liar. Not all Trump voters in 2016 were stupid, but we had 4 years of his nonsense to see that he should NOT be President. I reject your notion that just because someone is anti-abortion that they are not stupid for voting for Trump. I AGREE with you that being anti-abortion (which is the correct term by the way) does not in and of itself make a person stupid. Voting for Trump DOES. I know a LOT of anti-abortion people who voted for Biden because the totality of Trump said to them that they could not vote for him. THAT is what a smart person does.
So, I remain steadfast and CORRECT that the only people who support Trump are either:
1) JUST stupid
2) Racist
There are no other possibilities.
oc local wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
I look forward to hearing from eyewitnesses who were with Trump during the riots who can report as to his state of mind. I suspect they will be called to testify at the impeachment hearings.
Is Senator Ben Sasse a good enough eyewitness for you. You need to realize that Trump was surrounded by his loyalists, and you want them to prove to you his state of mind. Is Sasse a RINO whose eyewitnessing can be ignored?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/sasse-says-trump-was-delighted-and-excited-by-reports-of-capitol-riot/ar-BB1cAOya
Sasse heard about it second hand from someone else. I'd rather hear from eyewitnesses who were in the room with Trump during the riots. I expect that we will hear from one or more of these witnesses soon.
oc local wrote:
Yes, Sasse only "heard" from senior White House officials who were there. In Trumpworld they will call that heresay. The senior White House officials must ID themselves to be dealt with by the Trump Terrorists. That is the world Trump is working to boil over right now.
On Parlor, McConnell must be dealt with for treason. They call him Mitch the B*ttch.
If the people there are called in to testify, they aren't going to committ purgery. Trump's thugs do not control Congress.
If they do try to exercise that kind of power, they will be considered a terrorist organization and will be hunted down.
Fat hurts wrote:
Sasse heard about it second hand from someone else. I'd rather hear from eyewitnesses who were in the room with Trump during the riots. I expect that we will hear from one or more of these witnesses soon.
Do you understand what the "eyewitness" proof you are demanding will put the lives of those people in jeopardy? That seems to be what you want. Have the people come out and watch as they get targeted for elimination by Trump's terrorist team.
All you are managing to to do is feed Sally's position that Trump is not responsible to the insurrection because no eyewitness will step forward and put their lives art risk. Your like the rubber-neckers who have to slow way down to see the results of a high-speed car accident.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
oc local wrote:
Yes, Sasse only "heard" from senior White House officials who were there. In Trumpworld they will call that heresay. The senior White House officials must ID themselves to be dealt with by the Trump Terrorists. That is the world Trump is working to boil over right now.
On Parlor, McConnell must be dealt with for treason. They call him Mitch the B*ttch.
If the people there are called in to testify, they aren't going to committ purgery. Trump's thugs do not control Congress.
If they do try to exercise that kind of power, they will be considered a terrorist organization and will be hunted down.
For future reference - perjury
SDSU Aztec wrote:
oc local wrote:
Yes, Sasse only "heard" from senior White House officials who were there. In Trumpworld they will call that heresay. The senior White House officials must ID themselves to be dealt with by the Trump Terrorists. That is the world Trump is working to boil over right now.
On Parlor, McConnell must be dealt with for treason. They call him Mitch the B*ttch.
If the people there are called in to testify, they aren't going to committ purgery. Trump's thugs do not control Congress.
If they do try to exercise that kind of power, they will be considered a terrorist organization and will be hunted down.
Those eyewitnesses stepping forward will put their lives at risk. That is why some contacted Sasse because he will protect their identities. He does not want to put them in danger.
1101 wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
If the people there are called in to testify, they aren't going to committ purgery. Trump's thugs do not control Congress.
If they do try to exercise that kind of power, they will be considered a terrorist organization and will be hunted down.
For future reference - perjury
Sure, it was a misspelling. Do you have an opinion regarding what I posted?
L L wrote:
I do not believe underwhelming Democrat candidates are the reason Trump got so many votes.
Two types of Trump voters:
There is the voter that votes against Democrats no matter what because they simply hate Dems, libs or what ever.
If Reagan stayed a Democrat (which he initially was) and spoke the same rhetoric and for the same policies they would not vote for him.
And if Biden called himself a Republican they’d support him.
Trump was never a Republican but choosing to run for that party got him those voters.
Then there is the racist and hateful voter.
Many used to not vote at all. They are the big reason for any gains Trump made.
If you voted for Trump, it’s best to claim that first category and just admit you don’t like Democrats.
As far as the Democrat party failing the working class:
Their policies have sheets been more favorable to the working class.
The Affordable Care Act is especially helpful but Republicans keep tearing it down.
Dem banking regulations get submitted to help exploited workers from unfair payday loans and excessive bank fees.
I don’t know specific policies Republicans have presented to help the working class.
You are correct about all of the above. I think though where the Democrats failed the working class is in two areas:
1) They ignored them...took them for granted. Hillary didn't even campaign in some of the "blue wall" states, and that rubbed many of them wrong. Part of the ignoring came from no one championing the rise in the minimum wage. Bernie did that in 2016, and he got a lot of them to support him, and in 2106 that was considered a radical stance. We have to remember that not all minimum wage earners work in fast food. Light manufacturing work is often at or just above minimum wage as are many many other jobs that people have to support themselves and their families.
2) Elitism - I have LONG been a critic of the education elitism especially perpetrated by the Democrats. Free college is not a good idea for many reasons, but one of those reasons is it unintentionally diminishes those who don't go to college. We should actively value those who do not go to college. If a Democrat President or Democrat presidential candidate would actively seek to embrace the non-college educated crowd and consistently tell them how much we value what they do, that would go a long way toward fixing their disenfranchisement.
Fat hurts wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Since the pandemic, my family has Zoom calls weekly, and the virus is a big topic with them since so many of them are scientists. When viruses mutate, they almost ALWAYS become less lethal...that is by design. You are wrong about that. You can find a ton of stuff about that online.
Then point out the scientific evidence that the new strain of the virus is less lethal. I'm genuinely interest.
Well, first of all, I DID amend my original statement and said, "Yes, I should have said "presumed to be less lethal."
Secondly, I have mentioned this before, but my wife is friends with Tony Fauci (his friends call him "Tony"). She used to work for him at the NIH, and they do talk on occasion. My interaction with him is mostly limited to just saying hello. Part of my wife's view on this variant has come from things Fauci has said to her. It is possible he has changed his mind, or possible he says different things publicly than he does privately.
You can search for viruses becoming less deadly as they mutate...there is lots of evidence for that, but it is a debatable point.
Here is one article that talks about it -
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/could-sars-cov-2-evolving-become-transmissible-less-lethal/Here is a quote from that article - “The general rule in virology is that better transmission is associated with milder illness,” says Ian Jones, a professor of virology at the University of Reading. “So even if transmission is higher the virus may be less dangerous.”
Again, I am surrounded by research scientists, my wife has a graduate degree in immunology from Stanford, worked for Fauci at the NIH, and so I hear these discussions and opinions about viruses, etc. frequently. My best friend, unconnected to the Lovely Mrs. Flagpole, is an immunologist. Doesn't give me their knowledge of course, but I am a fly on the wall to many of these discussions and opinions. So much so, that I have accepted as a given that viruses TYPICALLY become less lethal over time as they mutate. I did that unconsciously and should recognize that most people aren't surrounded by scientists and doctors (Ph.D. and MD) like I am. Doesn't mean every mutation does that, because viruses can and do mutate frequently.
There is always a RISK when a virus mutates to become less lethal, however. Just as an example, if a virus has a VERY high kill rate, especially if it does it quickly, then the spread of that virus may not be great. If though that virus mutates so that it doesn't kill at such a high rate, it DOES allow for many more people to get it, so over all that could lead to more deaths just due to sheer numbers of people who get it, even if the individual's chance of dying from it is now less.
Flagpole wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
Then point out the scientific evidence that the new strain of the virus is less lethal. I'm genuinely interest.
Well, first of all, I DID amend my original statement and said, "Yes, I should have said "presumed to be less lethal."
Secondly, I have mentioned this before, but my wife is friends with Tony Fauci (his friends call him "Tony"). She used to work for him at the NIH, and they do talk on occasion. My interaction with him is mostly limited to just saying hello. Part of my wife's view on this variant has come from things Fauci has said to her. It is possible he has changed his mind, or possible he says different things publicly than he does privately.
You can search for viruses becoming less deadly as they mutate...there is lots of evidence for that, but it is a debatable point.
Here is one article that talks about it -
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/could-sars-cov-2-evolving-become-transmissible-less-lethal/Here is a quote from that article - “The general rule in virology is that better transmission is associated with milder illness,” says Ian Jones, a professor of virology at the University of Reading. “So even if transmission is higher the virus may be less dangerous.”
Again, I am surrounded by research scientists, my wife has a graduate degree in immunology from Stanford, worked for Fauci at the NIH, and so I hear these discussions and opinions about viruses, etc. frequently. My best friend, unconnected to the Lovely Mrs. Flagpole, is an immunologist. Doesn't give me their knowledge of course, but I am a fly on the wall to many of these discussions and opinions. So much so, that I have accepted as a given that viruses TYPICALLY become less lethal over time as they mutate. I did that unconsciously and should recognize that most people aren't surrounded by scientists and doctors (Ph.D. and MD) like I am. Doesn't mean every mutation does that, because viruses can and do mutate frequently.
There is always a RISK when a virus mutates to become less lethal, however. Just as an example, if a virus has a VERY high kill rate, especially if it does it quickly, then the spread of that virus may not be great. If though that virus mutates so that it doesn't kill at such a high rate, it DOES allow for many more people to get it, so over all that could lead to more deaths just due to sheer numbers of people who get it, even if the individual's chance of dying from it is now less.
Again, not a binary outcome.
Stop being so simplistic in your thought process.
Marietta Tar Heel wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Well, first of all, I DID amend my original statement and said, "Yes, I should have said "presumed to be less lethal."
Secondly, I have mentioned this before, but my wife is friends with Tony Fauci (his friends call him "Tony"). She used to work for him at the NIH, and they do talk on occasion. My interaction with him is mostly limited to just saying hello. Part of my wife's view on this variant has come from things Fauci has said to her. It is possible he has changed his mind, or possible he says different things publicly than he does privately.
You can search for viruses becoming less deadly as they mutate...there is lots of evidence for that, but it is a debatable point.
Here is one article that talks about it -
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/could-sars-cov-2-evolving-become-transmissible-less-lethal/Here is a quote from that article - “The general rule in virology is that better transmission is associated with milder illness,” says Ian Jones, a professor of virology at the University of Reading. “So even if transmission is higher the virus may be less dangerous.”
Again, I am surrounded by research scientists, my wife has a graduate degree in immunology from Stanford, worked for Fauci at the NIH, and so I hear these discussions and opinions about viruses, etc. frequently. My best friend, unconnected to the Lovely Mrs. Flagpole, is an immunologist. Doesn't give me their knowledge of course, but I am a fly on the wall to many of these discussions and opinions. So much so, that I have accepted as a given that viruses TYPICALLY become less lethal over time as they mutate. I did that unconsciously and should recognize that most people aren't surrounded by scientists and doctors (Ph.D. and MD) like I am. Doesn't mean every mutation does that, because viruses can and do mutate frequently.
There is always a RISK when a virus mutates to become less lethal, however. Just as an example, if a virus has a VERY high kill rate, especially if it does it quickly, then the spread of that virus may not be great. If though that virus mutates so that it doesn't kill at such a high rate, it DOES allow for many more people to get it, so over all that could lead to more deaths just due to sheer numbers of people who get it, even if the individual's chance of dying from it is now less.
Again, not a binary outcome.
Stop being so simplistic in your thought process.
Moron, I did not say it was a binary outcome. I am well aware of all the issues that COVID can cause in people who do not die from it. DEATH is still the worst outcome, and that's what we're talking about. I know more than you.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
1101 wrote:
For future reference - perjury
Sure, it was a misspelling. Do you have an opinion regarding what I posted?
Try not to react defensively when someone provides you with a correction. I know that most on these boards find that difficult to do. But I will assume, until proven otherwise, that you are among the elite who are able to accept and even appreciate corrections.
As far as your post is concerned, it is not clear to me what you are trying to say so I can't form an opinion.
Flagpole wrote:
Marietta Tar Heel wrote:
Again, not a binary outcome.
Stop being so simplistic in your thought process.
Moron, I did not say it was a binary outcome. I am well aware of all the issues that COVID can cause in people who do not die from it. DEATH is still the worst outcome, and that's what we're talking about. I know more than you.
You may not have said it, but your thought procress on this topic demonstrates such.
Your thoughts are so simple that you think that the only implications of increased cases of COVID are on the people who contract it. Are you so stupid (yes) that you can't comprehend additional consequences or a more transmissible virus.
Get your wife to post on here. I'm tired of talking an fvcking idiot like you.
Democrat and Christian is impossible.
Democrats are evil.
Marietta Tar Heel wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Moron, I did not say it was a binary outcome. I am well aware of all the issues that COVID can cause in people who do not die from it. DEATH is still the worst outcome, and that's what we're talking about. I know more than you.
You may not have said it, but your thought procress on this topic demonstrates such.
Your thoughts are so simple that you think that the only implications of increased cases of COVID are on the people who contract it. Are you so stupid (yes) that you can't comprehend additional consequences or a more transmissible virus.
Get your wife to post on here. I'm tired of talking an fvcking idiot like you.
Given the fvcking idiocy of your posts on here, I understand why you are only a "fly on the wall" in these conversations and not included in them.
I'd wager they tell you to put on your "earmuffs" when they have conversations or ask you to leave the room and let the grown-ups talk.
You’re just saying that Trump campaigned better than Hillary in the rust states and that’s because he lied without impunity.
Republican policies are not better for the working class.
As far as elitism:
Democrats are in favor of free college and trade schools.
Money shouldn’t be a reason to drop out of college.
And college debt makes home ownership and simply cost of living more difficult.
Trump’s pro coal polices have not helped coal miners.
These workers could be setting up wind and solar farms.
They could be setting up infrastructure to expand broadband to more rural areas.
Democrat policies are better for the working class, including those with no college education.
Again, access to more healthcare is a big help to them.
Republicans suck at helping anyone but themselves or their donors.
Sally Vix wrote:
LL - I voted for Trump not because I am a Trumpist. But because I DESPISE things that you Dems/Libs are for. One question for you - Just one - Do you support Partial Birth abortion? Your answer will tell me EVERYTHING I need to know about you.
1. You are a trumper to the bone. I told you so and you just admitted it.
2. If you gave a flying fk about abortions you would not have been ok with trump guzzling that aborted fetus cocktail to recover faster from COVID.
You are a fkn liar and hypocrite.