Apparently some of the S..S. agents working the Butler rally have lawyered up, one of them hired a known anti-Trump zealot who represented Vindman in the Trump impeachment hearings.

https://x.com/keny_berd/status...sistance-day-1342%2F

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:
<snip>
It seems it very well could be an attack with an infrared laser pointer, their symptoms are more consistent with severe sun burns rather than a chemical attack.
<snip>

Earlier posts in this thread said that affected folks were taken to emergency rooms. So what did the medical professionals say was the nature of the cause?

I haven’t seen a single report from medical professionals. Just guesses from lay people with no direct knowledge of the event.

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
I haven’t seen a single report from medical professionals. Just guesses from lay people with no direct knowledge.

The "medical professionals" who took care of these folks are bound by HIPAA. Everyone else who is not directly involved is just guessing.

Q is right, of course. Tangential thought: I hate HIPAA. I think it's overkill that destroyed collegiality among physicians.

The main difference between Trump supporters and Kamala supporters is that we are thinkers and they are "feelers."

We process our political opinions based on understanding. If Trump says that he will strengthen our economy, we want to know how he will do so. And he tells us specifics. He will put tariffs on foreign goods pouring into our country. He will cut taxes, including taxes on tips, and taxes on overtime pay.

So we think through what he says, conclude that it makes sense, and support him. To us it is a joke that Kamala keeps repeating, in response to how to strengthen the economy,"Let me start with this. I was a middle-class girl..."

We think that at some point they will see through her rational emptiness and abandon her. But, no. They don't care about plans. What they want is to be swept away by gushing feelings of joy and compassion, hope and change.

This was all on display in her interview with Oprah. It was not about political positions and plans. It was all about hugging, smiling, giggling, and teary eyes. A big mud puddle of joy in which these children wallow and splash.

This is why we can't reach them. We are not going to get into that puddle. And they are not going to sit up like grown ups and think.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: justjoe,

President Trump should accept.

CNN knows the drubbing ABC has taken for their bias. The last CNN debate was fair for the most part and this is another chance for CNN to try to convince everyone that they will at least try to be fair.

Trump knows that these debates are ratings bonanzas, so he can probably make certain demands, especially since Harris accepted already.

https://x.com/RealMacReport/st.../1837539870203617311

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
President Trump should accept.

Everything you said makes sense.

President Trump sometimes surprises me and he’s usually a couple steps ahead. It will be interesting to see if he does accept, and if he does what conditions he negotiates.

While often worrying and sometimes infuriating, this election cycles is definitely interesting.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
President Trump should accept.

That was my immediate, gut reaction as well.

He should decline as it is a lose lose proposition for him when he wins and it gives CNN more exposure which they shouldn’t get.

I’m done with talking point broadcasts. You want a debate, then let’s have real debate. Two questions and 15 minutes back a forth on each. Non MSM venue and two anonymous moderators.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
I haven’t seen a single report from medical professionals. Just guesses from lay people with no direct knowledge.

The "medical professionals" who took care of these folks are bound by HIPAA. Everyone else who is not directly involved is just guessing.

Full power IR Chinese lasers have been of particular interest to me this last year. Enough so, that I'm going to go ahead and say this is an educated guess on my part.

They're very easy to get in power levels that meet or exceed what we provide to our military, and for cheap, too. You can order a "toy" LAM on Amazon that will blind you for under a hundred bucks. They're basically unregulated. I have one on my AR that projects a solid shaft of light hundreds of yards on full power. At back yard ranges at full power under NODs, the splash is way too much to be usable, and the spot is damn near a foot in diameter. It's basically only usable on the lowest brightness setting. If you have zero experience shooting with both civ and full power IR lasers under NODs, it's easy to brush this off as "guesses from lay people with no direct experience," but some of us speaking up on this do have experience, and in fact, have those experiences in the general vicinity of the event where there is an active and growing NV shooting community where even in my own circle, some are not a fan of Trump. Eye damage from Chinese FP lasers is one of the predominant safety concerns in this segment of the shooting sports world, and it gets discussed a lot.

Dismiss it if you like, but I'll repeat that absent another explanation, I make this educated guess and feel it's a feasible explanation for both why the people directly behind him were affected, some more than others, and not the whole rest of the crowd. That's a directed attack, not a chemical attack, which would have affected more. It's a completely random guess as to why Trump wasn't affected, however. Might be that the bullet proof screens I've seen in pictures of his recent speaking events was enough to redirect or diffuse the laser that he was safe, or there's some sort of treatment on them that helped.

I just don't see that there's anything to gain from another debate. CNN wont be fair this time around, so why put up the nonsense anymore? At the very least, Trump shouldn't even consider it unless he has full control over who moderates it, and Harris will never agree to anyone who's not sympathetic to her.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
President Trump should accept.

Trump knows that these debates are ratings bonanzas, so he can probably make certain demands, especially since Harris accepted already.

I agree. The ball is in Trump's court.
If he accepts, it's an opportunity.

It may not move the needle much, but if it does it will be in Trump's favor. If he declines it will be a chance for Kamala to deflect from issues and call him a coward.

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
I haven’t seen a single report from medical professionals. Just guesses from lay people with no direct knowledge.

The "medical professionals" who took care of these folks are bound by HIPAA. Everyone else who is not directly involved is just guessing.

Full power IR Chinese lasers have been of particular interest to me this last year. Enough so, that I'm going to go ahead and say this is an educated guess on my part.

They're very easy to get in power levels that meet or exceed what we provide to our military, and for cheap, too. You can order a "toy" LAM on Amazon that will blind you for under a hundred bucks. They're basically unregulated. I have one on my AR that projects a solid shaft of light hundreds of yards on full power. At back yard ranges at full power under NODs, the splash is way too much to be usable, and the spot is damn near a foot in diameter. It's basically only usable on the lowest brightness setting. If you have zero experience shooting with both civ and full power IR lasers under NODs, it's easy to brush this off as "guesses from lay people with no direct experience," but some of us speaking up on this do have experience, and in fact, have those experiences in the general vicinity of the event where there is an active and growing NV shooting community where even in my own circle, some are not a fan of Trump. Eye damage from Chinese FP lasers is one of the predominant safety concerns in this segment of the shooting sports world, and it gets discussed a lot.

Dismiss it if you like, but I'll repeat that absent another explanation, I make this educated guess and feel it's a feasible explanation for both why the people directly behind him were affected, some more than others, and not the whole rest of the crowd. That's a directed attack, not a chemical attack, which would have affected more. It's a completely random guess as to why Trump wasn't affected, however. Might be that the bullet proof screens I've seen in pictures of his recent speaking events was enough to redirect or diffuse the laser that he was safe, or there's some sort of treatment on them that helped.

This is a perfect example of how Amazon is taking advantage of liberal "low value import" laws by allowing Chinese companies to violate all kinds of U.S. laws, with illegal and counterfeit goods. Lasers ARE regulated by law, China and Amazon just don't give a shit.

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
I haven’t seen a single report from medical professionals. Just guesses from lay people with no direct knowledge.

The "medical professionals" who took care of these folks are bound by HIPAA. Everyone else who is not directly involved is just guessing.

Full power IR Chinese lasers have been of particular interest to me this last year. Enough so, that I'm going to go ahead and say this is an educated guess on my part.

<SNIP>

Dismiss it if you like,....

Nobody is dismissing anything. Nobody is saying you cannot guess. The answer to Pipe smoker, who asked for report from medical professionals with direct knowledge, is simply that you won't have one, unless they are authorized by the patients to release it, or they illegally leak it.

Link

Trump says too late for another debate as Harris pushes for second clash

16 minutes ago



Vice President Kamala Harris accepted a CNN invitation to a presidential debate on 23 October, just days before the November election.

Hours later, Donald Trump told supporters at a rally in North Carolina that he would not participate, saying it's "too late".

The two faced off in a previous debate in Philadelphia on 10 September.

CNN had said the potential debate would follow the same format as the June one that Trump had against President Joe Biden, the then-Democratic candidate, which he was largely seen as winning.

In a statement on Saturday, Harris-Walz campaign chair Jen O'Malley Dillon said that Americans "deserve another opportunity" to see Harris and Trump debate before the November election.

"It would be unprecedented in modern history for there to just be one general election debate," she said. "Debates offer a unique chance for voters to see the candidates side by side and take stock of their competing visions for America."

On X, formerly Twitter, Harris said that she "gladly" accepted the debate invitation and hoped Trump would also take part.

Speaking at a rally in Wilmington, North Carolina on Saturday, he claimed victory in that earlier debate and said "it's just too late" for another.

"Voting has already started," he said, accusing Harris of seeking another round of sparring "because she's losing badly."

At the Trump rally, some voters told the BBC they hoped another debate would take place.

"If you're not afraid, why not? They both did great [at the last debate]," said Trump supporter Steve Castellano.

Adding that he thought the moderators were "a little biased" at the last debate, Mr Castellano suggested some conditions for a possible rematch.

"They should debate again at a network Trump chooses," he said. "What I would really love is a good podcaster [to moderate]. I'd really love Joe Rogan to do it."

Harris holds a slight lead over Trump in national polling averages, and North Carolina could be crucial for his hopes to return to the White House.

Trump's ability to win over voters in the state has been put in doubt by revelations that the Republican candidate he endorsed for governor, Mark Robinson, had made pro-Nazi, racist and sexually graphic comments on a porn website.

Robinson did not attend Saturday's rally, and Trump did not bring up the scandal or the candidate while addressing a mass of supporters, almost all of whom were dressed in the colours of the American flag.

Republicans absorb a political shockwave in must-win North Carolina
Snap polls released immediately after the 10 September debate found that most viewers thought Harris had been the better performer.

Since then, a majority of national polls suggest that Harris has made small gains with voters.

The two candidates exchanged swipes and barbs at the previous debate, with Trump calling Harris a "radical left liberal" and a Marxist who was destroying America.

Harris, for her part, goaded Trump, belittled the size of his rally crowds and quoted his Republican detractors.

CBS, the BBC's news partner in the US, has also invited both presidential candidates to participate in an October debate in Arizon

Not debating is a mistake…they will use this against him.

CNN had their crack and ABC was nothing but partisan political hacks. If he debates again it should be with moderators of his choosing. Let Tucker Carlson or have a debate on X with Elon Musk. Give her someone that’s going to make her defend her positions and ask her real questions. The only reason they’re looking for another debate is because her Oprah event was another complete train wreck. She’s a walking dumpster fire every time she opens her mouth. What she’s hoping for is that Dana Bash can save her with another bunch of multiple choice questions. It’s not a mistake, Kamala refused to debate on Fox.

quote:

Originally posted by Patriot:
Not debating is a mistake…they will use this against him.

Meh.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

Originally posted by Patriot:
Not debating is a mistake…they will use this against him.

Meh.

Oh noes. CNN would have said such great things about him if he’d only debated…

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
I’m done with talking point broadcasts. You want a debate, then let’s have real debate. Two questions and 15 minutes back a forth on each. Non MSM venue and two anonymous moderators.

Here's the debate format I want to see:

1. Moderators (a team of five) will be "average Joes." Admittedly, I haven't figured out yet how to choose them, but they won't be celebrities or TV personalities or professional "news" people. Moderators will have ultimate authority, to include opportunity/duty to interrupt the candidates when they ramble or simply aren't answering the question. ("Candidate one, you're not answering the question. Get on track.") So far, I'm liking the idea of striped shirts and whistles.

2. Audience: At the moment, I'm undecided.

3. Each candidate gets a note card, on which he or she can list five statements or positions the other candidate holds. Candidates will take turns challenging their opponents.
- Example: "You said at the Cracker Barrel last May that you support turkey bowling. Defend your position."
- Example: "You claim to have killed seven with one blow. Seven what? Be specific. Show your proof."
Each candidate will have a large cushy chair, a whiteboard on a flimsy easel, and a laser pointer. Candidates may not aim the laser at one another, nor the moderators.

4. Candidates may not interrupt one another. Doing so will result in an extended blast from a canned air horn, and a muting of that candidate's microphone. Green Slime, a la Nickelodeon, is something I'm considering.

5. Moderators will have authority to determine the total time allotted for the event.
- Example:
-- Candidate one offers a challenge. This should take less than 30 seconds.
-- Candidate two has up to five minutes to defend.
-- Moderators discuss for a max of one minute to determine whether they're satisfied, and can request further information. That request should be satisfied within five minutes.
-- The process is repeated, though with Candidate two offering the challenge and Candidate one defending.
-- Five minute break for all involved, then the second exchange takes place.
-- And so on, until each candidate has challenged and defended all five of his or her positions.

6. After the full set of exchanges, the moderators can take up to 30 minutes to discuss the exchanges, summarize, and dismiss the candidates.

7. Televise it, live, in prime time.

Obviously, I'm not qualified to set up real debates, but I think this arrangement would help keep the candidates on track and would allow some accountability for bullsh*t answers. It'd be a little fun, too.