That's as far as I read. I also asked a question, but you ignored mine.

"because he helped create it!!!" There's your propaganda.

"1) Who got v*****es in record time?" The medical and scientific community did.

"2) Who sent a hospital ship to NYC?" Good for him. One cheer for Trump.

"3) Who set up rapid distribution of v*****es?" I think Trump was more on the side of "let's let the states compete with each other for [wh**ever]" -- masks, test kits, v*****es(?), wh**ever. Generally speaking, he managed very poorly, if at all. If he at least got the v*****e distribution right, then good for him on that point.

"4) Who PUBLICLY swore they wouldn’t take a v*****e associated with Trump?" I don't know. Who? As for me, when I take a v*****e, I'd really _prefer_ that it not have come within a million miles of that quack Trump's influence, but I did accept the M*****a v*****e doses in my body as recommended by F***i and the medical profession, even if Trump happened to be president at the time.

"More deaths, 353000 in 2021 and counting under Biden while Trump had about 352000 for the entire year 2020."

I addressed that kind of comparison in a slightly earlier post in this thread.

"Trump spoke and speaks his mind directly."

I would agree that that is _often_ true about Trump. For example, if he doesn't like someone, he's relatively quick to insult them. It would help if he had more intelligence and restraint about that. But hey, at least we can say he speaks his mind. About some things. Maybe, about people.

He could have been more straight with us about what he knew about C***d at the beginning of the p******c. (I've stated this very mildly. But it's worth a few exclamation marks. Here they are: !!!!!!! ). My earlier post within this thread already gave a little more detail on this point about what he knew versus what he told the American public. He simply lied to the American people. He called it "playing it down" but that doesn't excuse it. It was a lie, and a very consequential one. It may not have hurt _him_ a whole lot, but it sure did hurt the American people a whole lot.

"its creator" -- I dismiss that.

"Many deaths were counted as C***D although it may have been something else." One way to get around that is to count excess deaths for a given time period. By comparing the numbers of deaths in various time periods, one can get an estimate of how many deaths are attributable to C***d. This has been done. I cannot say how accurate all the estimates are, but overall C***d's relatively deadly and the best estimates we have are from people like F***i and those at the CDC and WHO.

"In 10 months, under President Trump there were 425,000, C***D or deaths complicated by C***D. Under biden, in 10 months, there has been 353,000 deaths due to C***D alone." This is a poorly-structured comparison. Even regardless of the difference between "complicated by" and "due to C***D alone" (which difference I'm sure you understand), there's the other big difference between the _time_ periods chosen along the sequence of the p******c, for which the results are measured, like this: One might reasonably expect that an earlier time period would have fewer deaths than a later time period of the same duration would have:

So, for example, in the first week of a p******c there might be only 2 deaths, and in the second week we'd expect there to be more than 2 deaths, because the disease spreads. Similarly, in the first year of the p******c, we might reasonably expect there to be relatively fewer deaths, but in some later year of the p******c, we might reasonably expect there to be relatively more deaths, because the disease spreads.

"benefit of v*****es, better therapies and more clinical experience": Yes, you may have a point there; however, Republican disdain (encouraged by Trump) for precautions and disregard for civic duty are, to put it lightly, "not helping". Biden inherited a growing disaster from the Trump presidency. It takes a lot more doing to turn _that_ around, than it does to just preside over the disaster in its infancy, letting it grow, and encouraging people to just think it's like just an ordinary flu (which Trump obviously knew it was not, as we know from what he told Bob Woodward in _Rage_). (On the plus side, Trump did encourage the rapid development of v*****es and may deserve some positive credit for that -- though I'm doubtful of even that -- I think the v*****es would've been developed as fast without Trump.)

The point is that it's foolish to believe things just because Trump says them.

I would like that a lot of Trump v**ers would realize that (and then stop v****g for Trump and stop supporting Trump).

Yeah, I mean, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for sense or decency from Trump.

And, after all, he wasn't elected for sense, decency, nor relevant experience. He was elected because he was "base".

That's a joke.

Wow, "the breath of life"! Maybe that will carry as much weight with religious people as "heartbeat". I wish I'd thought of it.

People are allowed to v**e regardless of whether they're well-informed or completely uninformed or brainwashed.

People are allowed to v**e regardless of whether they're really intelligent or really unintelligent.

Apparently about 70 million v**ers v**ed for Trump, even _after_ having a chance to see him be president for four years. That 70 million is being gerrymandered (and/or "e*******l-colleged") into success even if 80 million v**e oppositely. Somewhere in that 70 million are some millions of people who can be convinced with facts and/or reasoning. One of my own sisters-in-law, who was plenty stubbornly a Republican, actually quit the Republican Party sometime in the last couple of years. So I know it is possible. I think she may have respected her daughter-in-law's opinion; maybe that's what finally convinced her. Both of them are really smart -- especially that daughter-in-law.

Very "simple" but not correct. Trump & Co. lost virtually all their court cases about the e******n; then (having _still_ failed to concede the e******n), on J*** 6 he watched a lot of the r**t violence on TV, until, after _hours_ of that, calling them off.

Digger47 wrote:

"First off, Pres. Trump DID NOT tell the people at the rally to go and district the Capitol. His words were to go and PIECEFULLY Protest ..."

Did he actually say to them "peacefully"? I thought he and his helpers told them over and over to "fight like hell". I think Trump also said other words to similar effect, like "brave patriots" or that they wouldn't get what they want without fighting. Did he (and they) say _both_ "peacefully" _and_ "fight like hell"? Which was given the more emphasis? (That's a rhetorical question; I already know that "fight like hell" was given more emphasis.)

The hours of the r**t were one of the tests of Trump's presidency. After they got violent, then he could have immediately got on TV, or even just tweeted, saying they should stop, and then they would have stopped. But he didn't, not for at least a couple of hours. Several of the people closest to Trump were essentially begging, either to him directly, or at least to Mark Meadows to tell Trump, to tell the r****rs to stop, but he delayed all that long time anyway.

You wrote:

"[Any] video can be doctored to show just about anything."

I agree that that is always a possibility, and not just with videos, but also with other evidence such as documents. That's why courts may (and probably usually do), instead of just looking at a video, also call witnesses to testify in person about it. The video shown was compiled (all or mostly) from r****rs' own videos which they took with their smart-phones. A court could even call the same person who filmed a video segment, to testify about it. So far I haven't heard that any of the defendants claim that any of the video(s) was false; have you?

In case that was a sincere question: The video to which I posted a link is the only one I have handy. If you look in it closely I think you will find a narrator's comment, together with a relatively peaceful scene, which may satisfy your curiosity. I don't have the footage number handy but I think that in one scene where the c*****l p****e where overwhelmed they did not put up a fight. C*****l p****e were spread pretty thin around the various places where people could try to get in. I don't think this video shows any explicit welcoming by the police.

When I did quite clearly answer it, at the end of that posting I asked you:

"Does this match your idea of why it's unique? If not, then what is your idea of why it's unique?"

Your response was:

"No."

You failed to answer the question "If not, then what is your idea of why it's unique?" If you expect me to answer your question (which I did, rather thoroughly), then why don't you also answer mine?

I also scanned your subsequent posts, which were replying to _other_ people; and none of your subsequent posts gave as clear an answer as mine. Among people who enter the discussion having already previously committed themselves to the same religious teaching or dogma, your kind of discussion may be good enough; but it's poor discussion for someone who doesn't happen to be already previously committed to the same religious teaching or dogma.