Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Trump 101: How not to President (TrumpThread #101)

999 replies

TheNorthWestPawsage · 25/05/2020 20:13

Two images. Same day.
161 days to November 3rd.

Thanks to BruceAnd Nosh for thread title.

Previous thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3877401-Trump-100-Thread-and-Were-Way-Down-the-Rabbit-Hole?pg=1

Trump 101: How not to President (TrumpThread #101)
Trump 101: How not to President (TrumpThread #101)
OP posts:
Thread gallery
38
B1rdbra1n · 04/06/2020 19:56

you call it a wall, but also looks like trump is now the one in the cage!

HoldMyLobster · 04/06/2020 20:13

There are state House Republicans here in Maine who I'm sure would quite happily repost that type of shit too.

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime · 04/06/2020 20:33

like a spurned lover trump is turning on the country as it rejects him

Trump was never a lover. Women he hasn't bought, he rapes.

Jaichangecentfoisdenom · 04/06/2020 21:14

@AskingQuestionsAllTheTime

like a spurned lover trump is turning on the country as it rejects him

Trump was never a lover. Women he hasn't bought, he rapes.

Terrible, but spot on, I believe Angry
TheNorthWestPawsage · 04/06/2020 21:16

Isn't a Trump due to visit you in Maine tomorrow Lobster*? Do you think he'll get a "warm" welcome?

  • hopefully not actually turning up on Lobster's doorstep!
OP posts:
TheNorthWestPawsage · 04/06/2020 22:21

So what are the chances that Trump decides that August 28th is the right time to restart his rallies?

Al Sharpton announces new March on Washington led by families of black people killed by police
www.cnn.com/2020/06/04/politics/al-sharpton-geroge-floyd-march-on-washington/index.html

The Rev. Al Sharpton announced Thursday that he's organizing a March on Washington in late August to mark the 57th anniversary of the historic demonstration for civil rights as protests over the death of George Floyd sweep the nation.

Sharpton said the event will be led by the families of black people who have died at the hands of police officers, including Floyd's family. Sharpton made the announcement while speaking at Floyd's memorial service on Thursday.

"On August 28, the 57th anniversary of the March on Washington, we're going back to Washington," Sharpton said as he delivered a eulogy for Floyd, a black man who was killed last week by a white police officer in Minneapolis, during the memorial service.
"We're going back this August 28 to restore and recommit that dream (of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.). ... We need to go back to Washington and stand up, black, white, Latino, Arab, in the shadows of Lincoln and tell them this is the time to stop this," Sharpton said.

Sharpton said the march is going to be led by the families that "know the pain" and know what it's like to be "neglected," including the families of Floyd and Eric Garner, a black man who was choked to death in 2014 by a police officer in New York.

The reverend also said the march is "going to be getting us ready to vote, not just for who's going to be in the White House, but the statehouse and the city councils that allow these policing measures to go unquestioned."

"We are going to change the time," he declared to mourners present at Floyd's memorial service.

The plans will likely raise significant questions about the safety of the event's participants as public health officials are still recommending against holding large gatherings amid the coronavirus pandemic.

OP posts:
lionheart · 04/06/2020 22:24

Sarah Cooper is exceedingly good at this (and in honour of NorthWest's thread title)--

'How to Bible.'

lionheart · 04/06/2020 22:27

Maine is quite small, isn't it? I hope your paths don't cross, Lobster.

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime · 05/06/2020 10:42

Damn.

The blasted Lancet has blown it again, and published a paper without bothering to check its use of data. Now Trump and his supporters will be gloating the ^The Lancet having published an article which falsified data to show that hydroxychloroquine was actively dangerous proves that the wretched stuff is therefore safe.

The editor of The Lancet really does need to go; failing to review things before publication is absolutely damning for The Lancet, and their reputation is now sunk without trace. Once (MMR) was happenstance; twice means they can no longer be trusted.

Lweji · 05/06/2020 11:01

It's not exclusive to The Lancet.
We do need to stop jumping the gun at every article. Particularly when it's only one. It's almost never the case in science that a single paper becomes unquestionable truth.
The MMR one was jumped on by vaccine doubters.
This one raised concerns, but scrutiny quickly questioned it.
The submitting author has to vouch for the data and he didn't make sure it was sound to start with. That's on the authors, mainly.

Lweji · 05/06/2020 11:12

Worth reading about retraction.

Some are fraud, others just mistakes.

www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/10/what-massive-database-retracted-papers-reveals-about-science-publishing-s-death-penalty

B1rdbra1n · 05/06/2020 11:15

Have we got to the stage yet where Trump is just an enraged beast reacting to people who are prodding him?

Lweji · 05/06/2020 11:46

"Heavily armed men who refuse to identify themselves are patrolling the streets of Washington, DC. They were sent by the Bureau of Prisons."

trib.al/a5CUWqi

I wonder if they can legally act on the streets like this.

B1rdbra1n · 05/06/2020 11:54

Peaceful protest represents a very real threat to trump and he has no way of countering it, if he goes in heavy it just makes him look bad, but he's doubling down anyway because he's got nowhere else to go

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime · 05/06/2020 12:08

Lweji
It's not exclusive to The Lancet.

The point is that The Lancet published it without sufficient check (whatever happened to peer review?) and have now had to withdraw it. This means not that it is untrue that hydroxychloroquine is unsafe, but that Trump and his cult can claim that it is untrue because it had to be withdrawn -- and any further research can now be pooh-poohed as being "like those lies in The Lancet". Or like the other research the WHO had going, it will have to be stopped because it was unethical to continue to put human lives at risk for research purposes when they realised that the people they gave it to were dying more than those they didn't, but not in sufficient numbers to be conclusive.

B1rdbra1n · 05/06/2020 12:17

@AskingQuestionsAllTheTime

like a spurned lover trump is turning on the country as it rejects him

Trump was never a lover. Women he hasn't bought, he rapes.

He doesn't mess about waiting for consent he takes what he wants by force. he now sees that America may not give him her consent and so he's going to take her by force, that's why the military are now on the streets
AskingQuestionsAllTheTime · 05/06/2020 12:19

Don't the badges have the cop's number on them for identification purposes?

www.fox5ny.com/news/nypd-officers-wearing-black-bands-on-badges-to-honor-covid-19-dead

Lweji · 05/06/2020 12:31

whatever happened to peer review?

I do peer review.
I try to check data but it's not always possible to verify all raw data.

At this moment we desperately need data on covid and publications are being pushed fast.
It's inevitable that mistakes will be made.
Even recently I noticed a small mistake on one pre-publication and contacted the author (sort of acquainted) and his reply mentioned it was one of many.

The main problem here was how the paper was not questioned before assays being halted.
It gets more notoriety because it's "The Lancet", but if editors were out for having papers retracted, then many would have changed by now.

We're all trying to get and publish data fast. Mistakes will be made.
If hydroxychloroquine is safe to use under medical supervision and effective, all the better.
Ultimately, it's the authors responsibility. Not the editors.

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime · 05/06/2020 12:52

The Lancet being the one everyone has heard of, the effect of them having got it wrong will be considerably worse than if any other publication had not noticed that there were more results from Australia than there had been patients there at all at that time, continues to be the point.

If you are regarded as a touchstone (not by professionals but by the general public) your publication is taken more seriously, and you have a greater responsibility. Or don't you?