2020 Politics Thread - Enter At Your Own Risk - RULES IN OP

[carlo16]

Originally Posted by spuds1961

Expect Drive-Ins to make a comeback, what better way to practice social distancing and still get out of the house.

Is Bernie gonna give everybody cars?

[rcmb3220]

Originally Posted by Slette

How come you won't ever answer Discostu's question about what you do for a living?

He probably owns his own business that makes him too much money to get a stimulus check but allows him endless time to post on Internet forums. You know, the same line of work all of us anonymous posters are in.

[Wade Mulroy]

Originally Posted by TheHeel

I smell vodka and McDonald's.

Yet another piece of confirmation that Russia wanted and helped Trump to win the election.

Here are the excuses that are typically given:
1. Fake News
2. Deep State
3. How much can social media affect a person's vote? (Luckily a peer-reviewed study was done on this and was mentioned in this thread at some point).
4. 'Mericuh! Yea! Hold my beer! Git R Done!
5. Hillary's server
6. Tan suit
7. Hillary's body count
8. Hillary involved in a child sex ring in the bottom of a pizzeria basement. (I still laugh that some still believe that nonsense)
.....and the list can go on.

Sad that many still support and will probably reelect Trumpnov. Very unAmerican of those people. I do not understand how people who claim they are Patriots are the ones who are the least patriotic.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nat...rence-n1188696

Sorry if I've posted this and missed it; but assuming Russia had a preference for Trump and played a part in influencing voter behavior, what is the method for reconciling it?

I neither love or hate the guy, but am just curious what the course of action is for something like this, now almost four years later. From my understanding (again, unless I missed it) the article isn't alleging Trump himself promoted the Russian voter influence, but rather he was simply the beneficiary of the efforts.

Just curious how this is all supposed to come out in the wash...

[TheHeel]

Originally Posted by coachnip13

Still salty that they couldn't develop a candidate who could beat a reality TV star who was only running for President as an ad campaign for his new network*.

CoachNipev, you forgot the asterisk.


*with Russian help

[spuds1961]

Originally Posted by carlo16

Is Bernie gonna give everybody cars?

Wow didn’t know that was part of the equation, most families already own a car but okay.

[chezball]

Originally Posted by hairysasquatch

Can you please state why you think the US is in violation of the Monroe Doctrine, o expert Intrawebz resarcher?

Maybe she can do some research on where the spaces go when using periods and commas.
Ready for "oh the irony' comments. ha ha

[chezball]

Originally Posted by Slette

How come you won't ever answer Discostu's question about what you do for a living?

He will when the teacher answers where they teach.

[TheHeel]

Originally Posted by chezball

Maybe she can do some research on where the spaces go when using periods and commas.
Ready for "oh the irony' comments.ha ha

What about spaces?

[hairysasquatch]

Originally Posted by Boo

So bitter, love it!

Originally Posted by chezball

Maybe she can do some research on where the spaces go when using periods and commas.
Ready for "oh the irony' comments.ha ha

I asked a straightforward question about one aspect of her claim and the facade of authoritative knowledge collapsed into name calling and refusal. Huge shocker.

[Dielon]

Originally Posted by Wade Mulroy

Sorry if I've posted this and missed it; but assuming Russia had a preference for Trump and played a part in influencing voter behavior, what is the method for reconciling it?

I neither love or hate the guy, but am just curious what the course of action is for something like this, now almost four years later. From my understanding (again, unless I missed it) the article isn't alleging Trump himself promoted the Russian voter influence, but rather he was simply the beneficiary of the efforts.

Just curious how this is all supposed to come out in the wash...

Obviously now that we know our minds were influenced by Russian brainwashing techniques we will know better this time around come November. I usually mindlessly observe propaganda I need these 'reliable sources' and Facebook to tell me what is true. Also MSNBC and Rachel Maddow have done a fantastic job covering Russiagate. She definitely isn't a conspiracy theorist.

[chezball]

Originally Posted by TheHeel

What about spaces?

Fixed, do you believe her e-mails were hacked or given to Wikileaks?

[coachnip13]

Originally Posted by TheHeel

CoachNipev, you forgot the asterisk.


*with Russian help

Why couldn't the Democrats put out a good enough candidate to beat someone who wasn't even taking the election seriously until mid-2016? Find better candidates.

What are you blaming the 2020 election on?

[Joan p]

Originally Posted by hairysasquatch

I asked a straightforward question about one aspect of her claim and the facade of authoritative knowledge collapsed into name calling and refusal. Huge shocker.

No you didn’t and you know that . If you don’t know what the Monroe doctrine is grab the closest 4th grader


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chezball]

Originally Posted by coachnip13

Why couldn't the Democrats put out a good enough candidate to beat someone who wasn't even taking the election seriously until mid-2016? Find better candidates.

What are you blaming the 2020 election on?

You have to wait until after the election to get the answer from the D's.

[tpeichel34]

Originally Posted by Dielon

Obviously now that we know our minds were influenced by Russian brainwashing techniques we will know better this time around come November. I usually mindlessly observe propaganda I need these 'reliable sources' and Facebook to tell me what is true. Also MSNBC and Rachel Maddow have done a fantastic job covering Russiagate. She definitely isn't a conspiracy theorist.

Bloomberg should have hired the Russians.

[coachnip13]

Originally Posted by chezball

You have to wait until after the election to get the answer from the D's.

Apparently so. TheHeel has already conceded the election ("Sad that many still support and will probably reelect Trumpnov.") so I wonder if he's going to blame Russia this time as well.

[rman112]

Originally Posted by Wade Mulroy

Sorry if I've posted this and missed it; but assuming Russia had a preference for Trump and played a part in influencing voter behavior, what is the method for reconciling it?

I neither love or hate the guy, but am just curious what the course of action is for something like this, now almost four years later. From my understanding (again, unless I missed it) the article isn't alleging Trump himself promoted the Russian voter influence, but rather he was simply the beneficiary of the efforts.

Just curious how this is all supposed to come out in the wash...

TheHeel, who trolls to relieve his political angst, skipped over this? I am shocked.

[Wade Mulroy]

Originally Posted by Dielon

Obviously now that we know our minds were influenced by Russian brainwashing techniques we will know better this time around come November. I usually mindlessly observe propaganda I need these 'reliable sources' and Facebook to tell me what is true. Also MSNBC and Rachel Maddow have done a fantastic job covering Russiagate. She definitely isn't a conspiracy theorist.

Sarcasm noted

Being a business guy, I understand how certain 'marketing' efforts play to people's emotions and influence behavior... Some are more affected than others (some not at all), but it's certainly a real thing that is used on us daily.

I understand when we place the 'Russia' tag onto the influence and having it directed towards a Presidential election heightens the severity. We can all debate the CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, etc. distort and twist things to achieve their agendas; but again, having the 'enemy' direct these efforts at a domestic election is something none of us want.

My question is just trying to understand what the next step is... Do people want a re-vote? Do the non-Trumpers want the pro-Trumpers to admit Russia helped influence the minds of (x%) of voters? Admittedly, I have no idea what the required course of action is to re-mediate the issue... just curious what's supposed to be done about it.

[discostu]

Originally Posted by tpeichel34

Bloomberg should have hired the Russians.

He should have listened to his advisors and prepared for his first debate.

He comically mishandled layups throughout that embarrassment.

But hey, who am into judge how someone blows $1 billion of his own money.

[Whodatiz]

Originally Posted by Joan p

No you didn’t and you know that . If you don’t know what the Monroe doctrine is grab the closest 4th grader


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He was asking you to interpret it by way of asking how the US is currently violating (your words) the doctrine. Use your brain Joan.

[cnewby]

Originally Posted by Wade Mulroy

Sorry if I've posted this and missed it; but assuming Russia had a preference for Trump and played a part in influencing voter behavior, what is the method for reconciling it?

I neither love or hate the guy, but am just curious what the course of action is for something like this, now almost four years later. From my understanding (again, unless I missed it) the article isn't alleging Trump himself promoted the Russian voter influence, but rather he was simply the beneficiary of the efforts.

Just curious how this is all supposed to come out in the wash...

They just need something to whine about. Theres no remedy for their made up collusion conspiracies that would satisfy them. Im surprised they are able to stay so connected from up there in Canada.

[gopherfan]

Originally Posted by RedSoxFan28

Bloomberg spent over $1 Billion on his presidential campaign

Isn't that enough to give every man, woman and child 2 Billion?

[hairysasquatch]

Originally Posted by Joan p

No you didn’t and you know that . If you don’t know what the Monroe doctrine is grab the closest 4th grader


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I asked you to tell us how the US is in violation of the Monroe Doctrine. You still can't or won't answer, so spare us all the remarks about grabbing a 4th grader (an activity that is generally frowned upon). Come to think of it, that's kind of revelatory coming from you.

Stay mad and crszy!

[Wade Mulroy]

Originally Posted by cnewby

They just need something to whine about. Theres no remedy for their made up collusion conspiracies that would satisfy them. Im surprised they are able to stay so connected from up there in Canada.

I guess that's kinda the basis for my questioning... not taking sides in the matter, just genuinely curious to hear the recommended answer(s) for, "Here's the findings, what do we do as a result of these findings?"

If this is all just a result of fake social media accounts, it's hard to feel confident that is ever going to be stamped out, especially with how interconnected we all are across the globe. I could potentially influence folks here by claiming certain degrees or experiences, when in reality it's all a lie and no one would ever be the wiser. Or hop on twitter and do the same thing during another country's election cycle.

It seems like the moral of the story is to do your own research and do your best to check sources. Part of what makes America great is having the opportunity to vote and hopefully we all cast our ballots based on our own ideals and not because someone told us so.

[TheFrenzy]

Nobody pays attention to my comments, so I'm going to repost my Coronavirus post here:

Originally Posted by TheFrenzy

And on today's episode of...

"Junk Science and Fearmongering on the Front Page"



What the f@ck is CNN doing?

I get that "OMG the drug that Trump said was promising isn't just ineffective,
it actually kills people" is just too juicy of a headline to pass up, but this
is beyond dishonest journalism. This is intentionally muddying the water on a
potential treatment option during a pandemic in order to score political
points.

The Claim: Supposedly a study showed that patients who were given
hydroxychloroquine died at a rate of 27% while those who were not treated
with the drug died at a rate of 11%. So clearly Trump is literally trying to kill
people.

1. This wasn't even a "study": There was no actual study or clinical trial
conducted. No control groups. Nothing. Someone just looked at a very selective
sample of medical charts. They call this methodology a "retrospective analysis,"
but it literally means that someone just went, pulled some data, and then they
tried to adjust for variables after the fact.

One example of the shortcomings of this method: From the actual report, all of
the patients were males over 65.



They openly acknowledge that any findings from this "study" won't even apply
to the majority of the population.

2. The study itself acknowledges that only the most severe cases received
the drug: Of course, CNN doesn't mention this fact once in their article and
the "researchers" don't include it in their abstract. You have look into the actual
body of unpublished, un-peer-reviewed paper to find out that:



Even the researchers acknowledge that its really not surprising that the group
treated with hydroxychloroquine had a higher mortality rate—the drug is only
being used as a last line of defense in treating the most severe cases.

3. The conflicts of interest: This one might be a little nitpicky, but when
the conflict of interest disclaimer says:

"Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the NEJM. JA is
a co-founder of iVeena Holdings, iVeena Delivery Systems and Inflammasome
Therapeutics, and has received consultancy fees from Allergan, Biogen,
Boehringer Ingelheim, Immunovant, Janssen, Olix Pharmaceuticals, Retinal
Solutions, and Saksin LifeSciences, all unrelated to this work. JA is named as
an inventor on a patent application filed by the University of Virginia relating to
Covid-19 but unrelated to this work. SSS has received research grants from
Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead Sciences, Portola Pharmaceuticals, and
United Therapeutics, all unrelated to this work. The other authors declare no
competing interests."

I can't help but be a little suspicious. Especially when several of those
companies, like Gilead Science, are listed as some of Sanofi (the manufacturer
of the hydroxychloroquine product) biggest competitors. In fact, just four days
ago, news broke that:

"About 40 COVID-19-related clinical trials have been terminated in China,
including two closely-watched studies of Gilead Sciences' antiviral drug
remdesivir, after a slowdown of the outbreak made it hard to recruit
patients."