Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
Some theories:
I think 1 and 4 covers it. Almost the same thing really. If your narcissism is that inflated, then you think what is good for you personally is what is good for the country.
I'd like to explore this one for a sec:
Replace country with Trump and his buddies stock holdings and you might have something there.
I think I said this a while back but I'm struggling to think of anything that could happen between now and the election that would cause me to not vote for Biden (assuming he's still the nominee). I think that can be extrapolated to probably about 95-99% of the people planning to vote. Trump supporters are ride or die with him at this point. A lot of Biden's support is just folks wanting Trump voted out. If there's undecideds still out that they do plan to vote for one or the other of these guys I'd love to hear from them - what could they possibly be waiting to hear from them?
You're speaking about people like my wife who don't follow politics (or the news in general). Other than hearing everyone else's opinions on current events, they have spent little effort in forming an opinion of who to vote for. Since they've distanced themselves from the noise the last 3 years, the events of the last few week will be especially important.
Well, this plus his reelection bid and I think that nails it if the question is why he downplayed it. Doesn't explain why he admitted he downplayed it. I think of scooter's suggestions it has to be 1 or 3 - or a 5th option that has to do with his memory.
You are probably right and I'm overstating it - there is a large number of people who are centrist/politically unaffiliated and within that group there's probably a big number that don't really follow things closely. For people like that I do hope they pay attention to this and realize we could have done so much better than we have.
"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?" Trump remarked at a campaign stop at Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa. "It's, like, incredible."
Note that Fox frames it as "Woodward dismisses claims he could have saved lives"Daywalker said:
It's likely it was the W76-2 warhead which was announced in the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review and was deployed in December, 2019. Fits the timeline of the eighteen interviews he did with Woodward. It would not be especially surprising to learn he was wowed and amazed how MIRVs work; it is shocking how little he knew understood about the nuclear triad or our offensive capabilities before he became PotUS.
Nope. All fake news! No matter what happens, fake news! Rinse and repeat. On the record? Fake news! On tape? Fake news! On camera? Fake news!
And its almost as if publishing a book is not an immediate process. Especially involving some things talked about on there that probably had to go through certain scrutiny for national security purposes as well.
That’s kind of crazy. I’ve been working with some community colleges and universities lately doing fit testing, and while they are having to buy ones that might not have the same name recognition, they have definitely been able to get enough for their dental and nursing students and faculty.The Dreaded Marco said:
Has Woodward commented one way or the other on what Trump said? I've not seen anything so far that gives his take on the quotes. Is there something in the book that shows that Woodward thought it was "bad or dangerous"?
I watched a few minutes of Laura Ingraham last night and she's definitely going with the latter - to the extent that she's championing the president for not wanting to cause panic and keep our economy from failing.
AND at the same time that Woodward is responsible for lots of people dying from COVID-19 by not releasing his book before now
This one I really don't get. How can "Woodward withholding this led to thousands of deaths" and "Trump was right to say and do what he did" both be possible? Obviously, all but Trump sycophants see that these two beliefs directly contradict each other, right?
I think that they are saying either:
Did you watch the Republican "debates" in the primaries last time around? Trump doesn't debate- he resorts to name calling and bullying and dodging questions. Biden has nothing to gain from getting on the stage with that nonsense.
We rolled the dice in early March when we had nothing but regular surgical masks. We spent $4000 for 1000 KN95s from China. They are crap. No better than a surgical mask.
I predict Biden is chomping at the bit to debate Trump . Trump has his own health/ "cognitive disabilities" lately. I would also add that if Biden and his people dont have numerous examples of times Trump has went out of his way to CAUSE panic when Trump inevitably doubles down on not wanting to cause panic during the debates Biden should be kicking himself for not taking that opening and running with it and the staffers should be fired.
I figured that but just wanting to be clear that I was merely stating what she said and not agreeing with it or endorsing it in any way.
