Quite inappropriate of her to make such a display, much like a comment I recall her making shortly after being elected to congress and no less inappropriate. That said, there has been an ongoing feud between her and Trump for just as long, most recently, on about the 1st of October or so, Trump unleashed a xenophobic attack on her at a rally in Minnesota. Of course since he is now sick with c***d19... One really shouldn't kick another when they are down, it is in quite poor taste. Furthermore, much can be said on the positive aspects of taking the high road, if one can manage doing so. It would seem she may not be capable, that is of course supposing that she has even tried to.

What "one"? My Nom De Guerre?

I haven't seen that "interrogation", too much to do too often, I miss a lot of the "happenings" even locally.

It can be argued that had Trump NOT downplayed the severity of the threat, either pushed for a federal shutdown, mask mandates, social distancing mandates and perhaps state-state travel restrictions or strongly encouraged for each and every state to enact their own shutdowns and mask/social distancing mandates until such time as they had the numbers down in their own states and the outbreak in their states at an easily manageable level over a reasonable period of time before slowly and cautiously opening back up coupled with travel restrictions (at least with states that haven't gotten v***s cases under control yet). We took to long shutting down, many states didn't restrict travel between states, Trump downplayed the threat the whole way through, he pressured the states to open back up too aggressively and well sooner than we should have. That is the likely reason we are taking so long in getting a proper handle on this p******c quite as quickly as most every other industrialized nation.

Yes, the economy suffered during the shutdown and would have suffered more if we had kept it shut down longer, it would have suffered more if we had more strongly encouraged staying home unless absolutely necessary, but had we done the shutdown right and waited until appropriate before re-opening and conducted the re-opening properly, cases and deaths would have been greatly reduced and while the economy would have taken a greater hit, I believe it's rebound would likely be further along by this date than it is as it stands.

I also believe that, as much as getting kids back into the classrooms is an important step, it is likely going to extend the duration of our own national c***d19 p******c. perhaps a better approach may have been to gather small batches of kids into socially distanced online learning centers to enable working parents to return to work, allow the children to socialize while at same time minimize the number of other students they come into contact with to reduce the odds of contracting c***d19 and make it easier to contain any resulting outbreaks. Additionally, it would create more jobs temporarily as each "learning center" will require someone to supervise, though that would also increase the costs during that period of time, before we determined it was safe to go back to regular classrooms/schooling, but IF it gets us back to normal faster and safer, gets the economy back to c***d-free normalcy faster, it may just be well worth it.

It would seem that you may have accidentally mixed up your numbers a bit here. The 166,000 figure appears in a USA TODAY article titled "Fact check: 2009 swine flu spread rapidly, but C****-** is more deadly" posted Aug. 13, 2020 where it states that as of the time of the article's posting, the U.S. had 166,000 deaths to c***d19. It compared that figure to it's reporting of 12,500 (12,469 according to Wikipedia as of Aug. 10. 2010 when WHO declared the global swine flu p******c over and done with) U.S. deaths due to the 2009 swine flu.

Such a mistake is easy to make.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/08/13/fact-check-swine-flu-spread-rapidly-but-not-deadly-c****-**/5577001002/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_p******c_in_the_United_States

Okay then, prove that he has ANY connection to your list. And by "prove", I do mean ACTUAL proof, not more memes or alt-right message board posts/tweets/alt-right media articles, real proof only. Preferred sources would be something like reference sources, interviews (unaltered only), videos of him speaking (unaltered only) or any RELIABLE source.


Edit; Other acceptable sources are any of his writings (unaltered only) as well.

Yes, yes, please enlighten us, what IS the difference between suggest and recommend? Most people consider the two words as interchangeable and either synonymous or nearly synonymous, including reference sources.

Example, can one not put forth a recommendation just as easily as they can put forth a suggestion?


https://www.freethesaurus.com/recommend
https://www.freethesaurus.com/suggest

Yes, it sounds all too familiar, Trump apologists making things up again. Too bad it isn't true huh?

Here is Saul Alinsky's ACTUAL "Rules for Radicals";

Always remember the first rule of power tactics: Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.

The second rule is: Never go outside the experience of your people. When an action is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear, and retreat.

The third rule is: Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can k**l them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.

The fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.

The sixth rule is: A good tactic is one that your people enjoy. If your people are not having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.

The seventh rule: A tactic that d**gs on too long becomes a d**g. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time, after which it becomes a ritualistic commitment, like going to church on Sunday mornings.

The eighth rule: Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.

The ninth rule: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

The tenth rule: The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.

The eleventh rule is: If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative.

The twelfth rule: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. You cannot risk being trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand and saying “You’re right — we don’t know what to do about this issue. Now you tell us.”

The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.


So... When can we expect the t***h from you people?

Why? What did they say that was worthy of reporting? Should I break down what they said for you? Okay, will do.



This portion seems to be saying that Trump either got C***d19 or is lying about it. Nothing here worthy of reporting someone over really, unless you consider questioning the word of someone that lies frequently offensive.




Nothing to report here either, Trump himself has said all along that C***d19 is nothing to worry about, if this is true, Trump has nothing to worry about, right?



Here it seems to be merely stating that IF what Trump revealed to Bob Woodward back in February, that C***d19 is serious and deadly, before AND during the same time frame that Trump told average Americans that C***d19 ISN'T anything to worry about is the ACTUAL t***h and C***d19 IS something to worry about... Well... That would be karma wouldn't it be? If someone goes about telling others that something deadly isn't anything to worry about and then they later pay the price, well, that CAN be considered well earned karma, which is not to say that I or anybody is celebrating Trump getting C***d19 or wishing that he dies from it, merely that he has earned wh**ever comes of it.

Trump has claimed, AFTER it was discovered that he knew all along that C***d19 was in fact something to worry about, that he played it down to avoid inciting panic, he could have chosen to warn that it was a serious matter and inform average Americans on how to try to remain safe without creating panic and that is what a TRUE leader does, he chose to downplay it, not a very good show of leadership in my book or in the books of any TRUE American. TRUE leaders lead by example.

Trump chose to politicize the v***s, extolling against the wearing of masks, social distancing and every other recommendation of the experts, that is d******e. He pit conservatives against liberals and science, TRUE leaders don't do that. He made no effort to encourage America to enact and comply with measures that would keep Americans safe and minimize the spread of C***d19, he in fact discouraged it at every turn. Had he actually been a TRUE leader, America wouldn't be in the state it is in at this point.

The takeaway in this is this, C***d19 IS serious, please ensure that you and those you care about stay safe.

Can we say plagiarism? When one pulls text from another's work, whether in part or in whole, one SHOULD accredit the text to the original writer of those thoughts, but I digress, let's examine the claim. I find it interesting that while denigrating the NYT, Fox themselves left out interesting details, such as, this line from NPR's article, "But while experts see a rise in vehicle attacks coming from right-wing extremists, ". Funny, one might think it would be included as a full paragraph prior and the remaining portion of the paragraph it rests in are included in whole. Of course, to be fair, they also chosen to leave out an entire paragraph in between as well. Allow me to highlight below.





As you will likely notice, the portion I italicized Is not present in Fox's article, nor is the portion I converted to bold print.

And some say Fox doesn't still spin for Trump or more importantly and more precisely, the GOP, because they have gone liberal. I would think liberals might have included the portion about "But while experts see a rise in vehicle attacks coming from right-wing extremists, ", wouldn't you?

Proof of plagiarism claim by the poster I am replying to AND the claim that Fox News is guilty of the same "crime" they accuse the NYT of;

https://www.foxnews.com/media/car-trump-supporters-ny-times

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/27/917523942/woman-charged-with-attempted-murder-after-driving-into-pro-trump-protesters


Read them both and you shall see. I suppose nobody has told the Murdochs "Judge not, that ye be not judged." (Matthew 7:1 from the KJV) or "Those that live in glass houses ought not throw stones" (fairly well known idiom).


In the spirit of full disclosure though, RandyBrian didn't plagiarize his ENTIRE post. Below are RandyBrian's contributions to his own post.






In the spirit of fuller disclosure, he kinda stole the "The Gray Lady" part from the very article he snatched the "scandal" and the text concerning the "scandal" from, go figure.

Sorry, have been somewhat busy lately. It would seem that the "thrown away" b****ts MAY be due to a lawsuit filed by Trump himself.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2020/09/21/pennsylvania-mail-in-b****t-ruling-could-cause-100000-b****ts-to-be-rejected-official-warns/#2cf3d0004be7


Apparent response by the Democrats;

https://www.fox46.com/news/politics/e******n/democrats-in-pa-scramble-to-limit-number-of-naked-b****ts/


What appears to "confirm" my theory;

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/09/the-9-discarded-b****ts-were-tossed-because-republicans-won-their-lawsuit-requiring-them-to-not-be-counted-report/


What MAY be the reasoning behind Trump's choosing to insist upon Pennsylvania rejecting "naked b****ts";

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/22/pennsylvania-officials-warn-2000-florida-redux-420275

https://www.axios.com/pennsylvania-naked-b****ts-mail-in-v****g-biden-9bbcf26f-c9d1-49bf-8939-0422242ed36e.html

Democrats are likely to account for the largest bulk of mail-in-b****ts as Republicans are more likely to v**e at their local polling places which could spell disaster for the Democrats as there is likely to be a greater number of "naked b****ts" coming in during this e******n cycle in Pa. If that ends up being the case, then Democrat v**ers will be subject to a disproportionate number of rejected b****ts.





I could not find a source making the claim of "130%" though I did manage to find one claiming 112%, though I believe that even that claim is being disputed.

https://factcheck.thedispatch.com/p/is-v**er-registration-in-los-angeles

In many areas (if not all), there are generally more registered v**ers than there are active, eligible v**ers due to people dying, moving or going inactive, that does not necessarily amount to fraud.





Note; I started this post much closer to your reply but then during the writing I had to halt and take care of much more important matters and as such, I amended to the post the first sentence.


P.S. Sorry about the delay, I sometimes get quite busy and at times, that business can take several days, perhaps longer or I may not remember that I was doing something just before I got so busy, but hey, better late than never.

Hmmm, someone could be in for one hell of a surprise come next news cycle.

If anybody is too impatient to wait for it to come, let me know and perhaps I can slip you a sneak-peek, it's not gonna be "perty".