The Trump Presidency...

mcphee1948

War Hero
Perhaps I was wrong. I thought you got "offog" from a Hugo-winning EFR short story. Shall we leave it there. Otherwise, we might have engaged in further banter, but alas not to be.
 
Then


Now


"How could this happen" they say...

Well if you hadn't let your TDS get in the way of scientists doing scientific things without letting politics ruin the discourse, you bedwetters might not have made such cvnts out of yourselves

Idiots, I wonder how many lives could have been saved if the "right wing quackery" headline hadn't been used, Somebody should sue the cvnts.

Still, you have to get the clicks of the cult.

Potential Covid-19 Drug Suffers Setback

No clinical benefit from use of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalised patients with COVID-19

Note that in the second one, the researchers make clear that they are disappointed with the result.
(They were working on the basis that they didn't give a toss whether they proved Mr Trump correct or whether they proved him wrong, but on the basis that they hope to find something that works). The question of whether Mr Trump has hit upon something which helps reduce the chances of catching Covid-19 - albeit at some clinical risk - hasn't been examined.

I know this is The Guardian, but it is worth reading, if even you metaphorically feel the need to hold your nose while doing so.

As Carlos Chaccour, extensively quoted in the piece says:

"There was huge political polarisation about hydroxychlorioquine, politics became mixed in with policy. So there’s people defending hydroxychloroquine because they like Donald Trump, and people opposing it because they don’t like Donald Trump. This should be about data, not opinions, and absolutely not about politics. The world had gone crazy.”

Please NB that I'm posting this for information - I don't give two hoots whether Mr Trump has got it right about hydroxychlorioquine, half-right, or completely wrong - since the whole thing risks becoming polarised. Unless the Oxford study has similar data problems, the answer at the moment appears to be that hydroxychlorioquine doesn't really do the job hoped of it.
 

BigT

LE
Potential Covid-19 Drug Suffers Setback

No clinical benefit from use of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalised patients with COVID-19

Note that in the second one, the researchers make clear that they are disappointed with the result.
(They were working on the basis that they didn't give a toss whether they proved Mr Trump correct or whether they proved him wrong, but on the basis that they hope to find something that works). The question of whether Mr Trump has hit upon something which helps reduce the chances of catching Covid-19 - albeit at some clinical risk - hasn't been examined.

I know this is The Guardian, but it is worth reading, if even you metaphorically feel the need to hold your nose while doing so.

As Carlos Chaccour, extensively quoted in the piece says:

"There was huge political polarisation about hydroxychlorioquine, politics became mixed in with policy. So there’s people defending hydroxychloroquine because they like Donald Trump, and people opposing it because they don’t like Donald Trump. This should be about data, not opinions, and absolutely not about politics. The world had gone crazy.”

Please NB that I'm posting this for information - I don't give two hoots whether Mr Trump has got it right about hydroxychlorioquine, half-right, or completely wrong - since the whole thing risks becoming polarised. Unless the Oxford study has similar data problems, the answer at the moment appears to be that hydroxychlorioquine doesn't really do the job hoped of it.
The Telegraph is also running the report
 
Another apparent blind-siding for the US military, and NATO allies. Going home in case of internal strife in the run-up to November's election?

'President Donald Trump has ordered the Pentagon to pull nearly 10,000 troops out of Germany by September, which would mark a sharp drawdown in a country that is home to the largest number of forces in Europe, the Wall Street Journal reported Friday.

'Pentagon officials on Friday said they were unaware of the plan. But the Journal, citing unnamed government officials, said White House National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien recently signed off on it

'The move would cut 9,500 troops from the 34,500 that are stationed in Europe, the Journal reported. The plan also would put a cap on the number of forces that could be in Germany at any given time to 25,000 personnel, which would put tight restrictions on the types of training missions that U.S. European Command could carry out in the country.

'In recent years, the military has relied heavily on rotational forces to move in and out of Germany for NATO related exercises. During major drills, the total force can increase to roughly 50,000 depending on the nature of the training.'


Knee jerk reaction to the military reminding him that the constitution is for the citizens of the United States?
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
Knee jerk reaction to the military reminding him that the constitution is for the citizens of the United States?
Possibly, or money-saving, security concerns at home or 'FU' to European NATO allies, In the latter case, we now have new besties in Poland, so unless you comply with US requirements, the rest of you can go whistle.
 
Strange times indeed
 
Trump directs Pentagon to pull 9,500 troops from Germany, report says

Trump is Putin's plaything....in fifty years when both are dead you will know the ground truth of what has gone down for the past 5.
Oh please, Russia, really.
What do you think the US black budget has been ramping up in the last 4 years.
The US will have a total global reach of high capacity 5G, and extremely advanced autonomous and hypersonic capability to utilize it.
Russia won't do a thing.


You article has Interesting points...
Pentagon officials on Friday said they were unaware of the plan. But the Wall Street Journal, citing unnamed government officials, said White House National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien recently signed off on it
Telling...
If true, Trump’s decision to cut forces would come at a time when the Pentagon has sought to increase capabilities in Europe
Defacto...
Moving 9,000 troops, many of them likely with families, within three months would be a major logistical undertaking. EUCOM declined to comment on whether it was drawing up plans to scale down, referring questions to the Pentagon.
Patience good man, patience.
The truth will come out.


PS - St Barry pulled out two brigades in 2012...nobody seemed to be worried about that.
Then Ukraine was going CivWar a very short time after, and sometime much earlier (2009) St Barry (the diplomat) sent Hillary with a big red button so she could suck off the Russians and show them how weak they were (and they got fucked over)
The difference now, Trump would act on any Russian aggression, Anybody who doesn't realize that is blind.

And Germany needs to start paying their way, I would say that even as a Brit, They are the richest and biggest beneficiary of the EU, they should be chipping in their fair share.



Oh...
I thought I would just leave this in here too...in case anybody misses it elsewhere.
It might prove important in the future, I suggest everybody watch it.



It's going to be a long summer, By Christmas, people will be questioning everything and assuming nothing.
 
Last edited:
After all, didn't he get elected in the first place because most Americans agreed with his views.
No, fewer Americans voted for him than for his opponent. He got elected because the views of most Americans only indirectly impact the results of US presidential elections if at all*.


*They didn't, in his case.
 
An unlikely occurrence given that American Football was first played in 1869, and the first legal forward pass wasn’t thrown until 1906. I think even the RFU would have got used to the idea of the existence of American Football in that time.

Far more upsetting for them was the idea of grubby Northern working oiks being paid to split their shifts in order to play.
It was a metaphor, like the infamous 'swamp' question posed to me earlier.. The point, being that Trump is playing an entirely different game, which has produced results i.e. he won in 2016. Most of his detractors are playing another game and completely baffled as a result.

Don't believe me ? I thought an interesting supporting article to my theory, by the daily wail this morning. The author who knew trump back to the mafia links, testifies that the man is not a fool at all and most of the people on this thread, have forgotten or never knew the old military adage about 'respecting your enemy', no matter how stupid you think they're are.
 
This will upset the good old boys and Yahoos

C986FFA7-A553-4D02-BB80-D1BA6B15A94A.jpeg

D517F3F9-BBF6-4FA9-B6C9-7A628DD73C3C.jpeg



 
No, fewer Americans voted for him than for his opponent. He got elected because the views of most Americans only indirectly impact the results of US presidential elections if at all*.


*They didn't, in his case.
America is not a centralised state, its federal and designed to ensure that no single party, belief or state can win by a majority of votes and thus seize control of the federal state. The European union operates a similar system, otherwise the big countries would have total control of the federal state and the smaller states would be without power or a democratic mandate.
 
America is not a centralised state, its federal and designed to ensure that no single party, belief or state can win by a majority of votes and thus seize control of the federal state.
Entirely irrelevant to the point that I responded to. He was not elected because of popularity amongst voters, he was elected because the US presidential voting system is specifically designed to prevent popularity triumphing over states' preferences.
 
It's called 'Peer review' ....it's WHY journals like The Lancet are trusted sources.

Because if they publish something that later turns out to be unproven - which is a verdict in a Scottish Court - they will publish a retraction ......a bit like this one:


The Lancet takes issues of scientific integrity extremely seriously, and there are many outstanding questions about Surgisphere and the data that were allegedly included in this study. Following guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), institutional reviews of Surgisphere’s research collaborations are urgently needed.

The retraction notice is published today, June 4, 2020. The article will be updated to reflect this retraction shortly.

For The Lancet, verifiable facts are indisputable.
This whole episode is just getting stranger.

'On Thursday, most of the authors of major studies that appeared in The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) retracted their work. They issued apologies, saying they could no longer vouch for their data after the firm that supplied it -- Chicago-based Surgisphere -- refused to be audited.

'Surgisphere, founded in 2007 by vascular surgeon Sapan Desai, had refused to share data with third-party reviewers, saying it would violate privacy agreements with hospitals. However, when science news site The Scientist began reaching out to hospitals throughout the US to ask whether they had participated, it found none.

'Surgisphere's internet profile has also raised numerous questions. Only a handful of employees could be found on LinkedIn, and most have now deactivated their accounts. According to the Guardian newspaper, its employees included an adult model and until last week the contact page on its website redirected to a WordPress template for a cryptocurrency website, leaving it unclear how hospitals could have reached out to them.

'Meanwhile Desai, who according to court records has three outstanding medical malpractice suits against him, has written extensively in the past on research misconduct. "The most serious cause of fraud in medical publishing is manufactured data that authors use to support high impact conclusions," he said in a 2013 paper.'


 
WTF is that even supposed to mean.
I think it means THEY (not THEM) will be able to use the 5G network for nefarious purposes:
  • spreading viruses,
  • complete instant 24/7 monitoring of the population
  • causing cancer,
  • directing beamed energy weapons from space,
  • direct mind control of the population through microchips injected in vaccines (or something),
  • activating the chemicals spread by chemtrails,
  • killing the population by emitting gamma rays (I'm guessing this isn't targeted)
None of these were made up by me.

There are other CT nutjob theories about 5G but I lost the power of rational thought after that lot and lapsed into a reason induced coma.
 
Last edited:
Top