- Joined
- Aug 3, 2012
- Messages
- 675
- Points
- 63
Everyone can see the Guliani Humiliation here HEE HEE
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
President Trump will win again
- Thread starter Dr Christopher Cheok C S
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2012
- Messages
- 675
- Points
- 63
What's this ? Pathetic Low class pieces of shit who were featured at our National Convention? Humiliated? Yes, because anything the fat fuck Trump touches dies.
That's right these fucked in the heads spoke at the national convention.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...ed-guns-protesters-indicted-firearms-n1242359
St. Louis husband and wife who pointed guns at protesters indicted on firearms charges
Mark and Patricia McCloskey were each indicted on charges of exhibiting a firearm and tampering with evidence.
A couple draws guns at protesters in St. Louis, Missouri, on June 28, 2020.Lawrence Bryant / Reuters file
Oct. 6, 2020, 8:11 PM EDT
By Tim Stelloh
The St. Louis husband and wife who were captured on video brandishing guns at protesters over the summer were indicted Tuesday on firearm and evidence tampering charges, their lawyer said.
The indictment comes nearly four months after Mark and Patricia McCloskey — who have been embraced by conservatives and appeared at the Republican National Convention — were filmed and photographed outside their affluent West Central End home pointing a semi-automatic rifle and a handgun at the demonstrators.
St. Louis couple seen waving guns at protesters defend themselves, Trump, at RNC
AUG. 24, 202004:15
The couple faces two counts each for exhibiting a weapon and tampering with evidence, according to St. Louis NBC affiliate KSDK. Their lawyer, Joel Schwartz, told NBC News on Tuesday that they will deal with the charges accordingly, which he called “baseless.”
It wasn’t clear what evidence prosecutors presented to a grand jury to obtain the tampering charge. A message left with the office of St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner was not immediately returned.
Gardner charged the couple with felony unlawful use of a weapon in July. In a statement, she said it was illegal to “wave weapons in a threatening manner at those participating in a nonviolent protest.”
“While we are fortunate this situation did not escalate into deadly force, this type of conduct is unacceptable in St. Louis,” Gardner said.
The status of the unlawful use charge was not immediately clear.
The McCloskeys said they were “in fear of imminent harm” during the June 28 protest, according to a statement released on their behalf after the event.
Video appears to show St. Louis couple pointing guns at protesters in front of their house
JUNE 29, 202000:33
Protesters and police reform advocates were demonstrating against St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson, who lives in the same neighborhood as the McCloskeys, after she released names and home addresses of "defund the police" activists.
Police have said the couple told officers that protesters yelled expletives and threatened them after breaking a gate that guarded their private street.
Recommended
CALIFORNIA WILDFIRESCause of Southern California fire that forced thousands to evacuate may be 'lashing wire'
U.S. NEWSHeated protests in Philadelphia after Black man shot dead by police
Daniel Shular, a freelance photojournalist who was at the demonstration has challenged this account, saying he didn’t see anyone break the gate or yell obscenities until Mark McCloskey appeared with a rifle.
After Gardner announced the charges in July, Missouri Gov. Mike Parson called them against the couple “outrageous,” while state Attorney General Eric Schmitt sought to have them dismissed because the couple was “defending their property and safety.”
In an interview with "Marc Cox Morning Show," Parson that he’d consider a pardon for the couple if they were convicted of a crime from the confrontation.
A representative for the McCloskeys has previously insisted the couple is not opposed to protests for racial equality and were only fearful of a few white protesters in the crowd.
“The Black Lives Matters movement is here to stay, it is the right message, and it is about time,” said Albert Watkins, a lawyer for the McCloskeys, in June. “The McCloskeys want to make sure no one thinks less of BLM, its message and the means it is employing to get its message out because of the actions of a few white individuals who tarnished a peaceful protest.”
That's right these fucked in the heads spoke at the national convention.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...ed-guns-protesters-indicted-firearms-n1242359
St. Louis husband and wife who pointed guns at protesters indicted on firearms charges
Mark and Patricia McCloskey were each indicted on charges of exhibiting a firearm and tampering with evidence.
A couple draws guns at protesters in St. Louis, Missouri, on June 28, 2020.Lawrence Bryant / Reuters file
Oct. 6, 2020, 8:11 PM EDT
By Tim Stelloh
The St. Louis husband and wife who were captured on video brandishing guns at protesters over the summer were indicted Tuesday on firearm and evidence tampering charges, their lawyer said.
The indictment comes nearly four months after Mark and Patricia McCloskey — who have been embraced by conservatives and appeared at the Republican National Convention — were filmed and photographed outside their affluent West Central End home pointing a semi-automatic rifle and a handgun at the demonstrators.
St. Louis couple seen waving guns at protesters defend themselves, Trump, at RNC
AUG. 24, 202004:15
The couple faces two counts each for exhibiting a weapon and tampering with evidence, according to St. Louis NBC affiliate KSDK. Their lawyer, Joel Schwartz, told NBC News on Tuesday that they will deal with the charges accordingly, which he called “baseless.”
It wasn’t clear what evidence prosecutors presented to a grand jury to obtain the tampering charge. A message left with the office of St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner was not immediately returned.
Gardner charged the couple with felony unlawful use of a weapon in July. In a statement, she said it was illegal to “wave weapons in a threatening manner at those participating in a nonviolent protest.”
“While we are fortunate this situation did not escalate into deadly force, this type of conduct is unacceptable in St. Louis,” Gardner said.
The status of the unlawful use charge was not immediately clear.
The McCloskeys said they were “in fear of imminent harm” during the June 28 protest, according to a statement released on their behalf after the event.
Video appears to show St. Louis couple pointing guns at protesters in front of their house
JUNE 29, 202000:33
Protesters and police reform advocates were demonstrating against St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson, who lives in the same neighborhood as the McCloskeys, after she released names and home addresses of "defund the police" activists.
Police have said the couple told officers that protesters yelled expletives and threatened them after breaking a gate that guarded their private street.
Recommended
CALIFORNIA WILDFIRESCause of Southern California fire that forced thousands to evacuate may be 'lashing wire'
U.S. NEWSHeated protests in Philadelphia after Black man shot dead by police
Daniel Shular, a freelance photojournalist who was at the demonstration has challenged this account, saying he didn’t see anyone break the gate or yell obscenities until Mark McCloskey appeared with a rifle.
After Gardner announced the charges in July, Missouri Gov. Mike Parson called them against the couple “outrageous,” while state Attorney General Eric Schmitt sought to have them dismissed because the couple was “defending their property and safety.”
In an interview with "Marc Cox Morning Show," Parson that he’d consider a pardon for the couple if they were convicted of a crime from the confrontation.
A representative for the McCloskeys has previously insisted the couple is not opposed to protests for racial equality and were only fearful of a few white protesters in the crowd.
“The Black Lives Matters movement is here to stay, it is the right message, and it is about time,” said Albert Watkins, a lawyer for the McCloskeys, in June. “The McCloskeys want to make sure no one thinks less of BLM, its message and the means it is employing to get its message out because of the actions of a few white individuals who tarnished a peaceful protest.”
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 29,398
- Points
- 113
Joe Biden is tipped to win the US presidential election, but polling is never as simple as it seems
Posted 4h
A composite image of Donald Trump and Joe Biden
By telling prospective voters who is the most likely to win, can they influence the result of the election by playing a role in the voters' decision?(Reuters: Brian Snyder/AP: Julio Cortez)
Polls highly favour Joe Biden to win the US presidential election.
These polls are not just abstract information. By telling prospective voters who is the most likely to win, can they influence the result of the election by playing a role in the voters' decision? The evidence says yes, and it most likely favours Biden.
In theory, you could imagine two possible effects of polls. First, a momentum effect. Second, an underdog effect.
A momentum effect could benefit the candidate either leading or gaining in the polls. It can motivate their supporters to vote (the bandwagon effect) and demotivate the supporters of the other candidate (the discouragement effect).
CNN's 'Poll of Polls' as October 22, 2020.
An underdog effect, on the other hand, could penalise the leading candidate.
This is because supporters think it's a done deal and don't mobilise to vote (resting on their laurels) or because the supporters of the trailing candidate are motivated by the idea of losing (a back-to-the-wall effect).
These different effects tap into some of our intuitive psychology. It is therefore hard to know the net effect of polls.
Some evidence points to the possibility of an underdog effect when a party is just behind.
This was the case in 2016, when Trump edged out Hillary Clinton in key states despite her lead in national polls.
But the overwhelming message from the relevant research is that positive polls increase a candidate's chance of winning.
Momentum effect: it helps to be ahead
In laboratory experiments recreating elections in controlled settings, California Institute of Technology economist Marina Agranov and colleagues found polls "lead to more participation by the expected majority and generate more landslide elections".
A similar effect has been observed in real elections.
Using polling and voting data from French elections, my colleagues and I have looked at how those yet to vote were influenced by early exit polls giving a fairly precise prediction of the result.
France has the longest election day in the world, due to its overseas territories in the Pacific.
When the first exit poll is released at 8:00pm in Paris, for example, it is just 9:00am in Tahiti, where people are still to decide if they will vote and for whom.
Joe Biden and Donald Trump stand far apart on a blue stage in front of a masked audience.
A momentum effect could benefit the candidate either leading or gaining in the polls.(Jim Bourg/Pool Via AP)
We found that knowledge of polls pointing to a certain outcome meant voters in such territories were less likely to vote. In particular, they were less likely to vote for the losing candidate. It led to a momentum effect for the leading candidate in mainland France, tending to increase their share of the vote in territories voting later.
A similar momentum effect has been discerned in Britain. Before 1918, general elections were held over a two-week period. The side ahead in the first days of the election tended to benefit from an increasing advantage, which peaked on about the eighth day of voting.
The West Coast effect
In the United States the possibility of such an effect of early information has been discussed as the "West Coast effect", whereby voters in California and other western US states can be influenced by early results from the east coast, three hours ahead.
This issue became very salient in 1980 when NBC released an early prediction at 8:00pm New York time that Republican presidential candidate Ronald Reagan would beat Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter.
Polling companies do not tend to produce polls that skew results for partisan reasons.(Reuters: Daniel Acker)
The polls were still open in many western states at the time. Research found this early call had a discouraging effect on prospective Democrat voters, making them less likely to vote.
Given this converging evidence, it is no surprise partisan organisations tend to use favourable polls to push a winning narrative to their support base.
As a consequence of polls' possible strategic effect, polling companies are tightly regulated in modern democracies.
Polling companies do not tend to produce polls that skew results for partisan reasons. Whatever errors occur tend to be due to flaws in polling methodology, rather than being deliberate.
Manipulating betting markets
However, people who want to influence the public narrative about who is winning can influence something: betting markets.
These are used to estimate the candidates' winning chances. On these markets, people can put their money where their mouth is, and bet on the candidate they think will win.
But what if someone is willing to put a lot of money on a candidate they want to win, in a bid to skew the market predictions?
There is an incentive to manipulate betting markets' prices, to influence voters by suggesting a candidate's prospects are better than they actually are.
Research and experiments have shown that, in theory, such markets can be manipulated to move prices in one direction.
To do so in the real world would likely require spending many millions of dollars, But given the huge amounts spent in US campaigns, such expenditure is feasible.
Trump's chances overrated
In 2020, Trump's chances have been surprisingly high in betting markets given the polls. What does research say about this fact?
In past research, I have found political betting markets tend to be biased toward 50 per cent. That is, they tend to say the race is closer to 50/50 than it is. This bias is larger than on other types of betting markets (such as sports) — and would be expected if manipulators try to influence the prices.
I estimate the 35 per cent chance these betting markets are giving to a Trump win may be skewing the results by 15 percentage points — meaning Trump more accurately has a 20 per cent chance of victory.
For more accurate predictions, therefore, you are better looking at those from professional forecasters, such as Five Thirty Eight and The Economist.
In these forecasts Trump has only 5-12 per cent chance of winning. Importantly, Biden's advantage appears much firmer than what Clinton had in 2016.
But even these predictions may be overestimated. As pointed out by one of the best forecasters in the US, Columbia University statistician Andrew Gelman, professional forecasters have an interest in hedging their bets to preserve their reputation.
These low forecasts have a striking implication. Putting money on Biden now is a relatively safe bet.
It may also help move the betting market predictions in Biden's favour.
Lionel Page is professor in economics at University of Technology Sydney. This article originally appeared on The Conversation.
Watch
Duration: 4 minutes 28 seconds
4m 28s
Posted 4h
A composite image of Donald Trump and Joe Biden
By telling prospective voters who is the most likely to win, can they influence the result of the election by playing a role in the voters' decision?(Reuters: Brian Snyder/AP: Julio Cortez)
Polls highly favour Joe Biden to win the US presidential election.
These polls are not just abstract information. By telling prospective voters who is the most likely to win, can they influence the result of the election by playing a role in the voters' decision? The evidence says yes, and it most likely favours Biden.
In theory, you could imagine two possible effects of polls. First, a momentum effect. Second, an underdog effect.
A momentum effect could benefit the candidate either leading or gaining in the polls. It can motivate their supporters to vote (the bandwagon effect) and demotivate the supporters of the other candidate (the discouragement effect).
CNN's 'Poll of Polls' as October 22, 2020.
An underdog effect, on the other hand, could penalise the leading candidate.
This is because supporters think it's a done deal and don't mobilise to vote (resting on their laurels) or because the supporters of the trailing candidate are motivated by the idea of losing (a back-to-the-wall effect).
These different effects tap into some of our intuitive psychology. It is therefore hard to know the net effect of polls.
Some evidence points to the possibility of an underdog effect when a party is just behind.
This was the case in 2016, when Trump edged out Hillary Clinton in key states despite her lead in national polls.
But the overwhelming message from the relevant research is that positive polls increase a candidate's chance of winning.
Momentum effect: it helps to be ahead
In laboratory experiments recreating elections in controlled settings, California Institute of Technology economist Marina Agranov and colleagues found polls "lead to more participation by the expected majority and generate more landslide elections".
A similar effect has been observed in real elections.
Using polling and voting data from French elections, my colleagues and I have looked at how those yet to vote were influenced by early exit polls giving a fairly precise prediction of the result.
France has the longest election day in the world, due to its overseas territories in the Pacific.
When the first exit poll is released at 8:00pm in Paris, for example, it is just 9:00am in Tahiti, where people are still to decide if they will vote and for whom.
Joe Biden and Donald Trump stand far apart on a blue stage in front of a masked audience.
A momentum effect could benefit the candidate either leading or gaining in the polls.(Jim Bourg/Pool Via AP)
We found that knowledge of polls pointing to a certain outcome meant voters in such territories were less likely to vote. In particular, they were less likely to vote for the losing candidate. It led to a momentum effect for the leading candidate in mainland France, tending to increase their share of the vote in territories voting later.
A similar momentum effect has been discerned in Britain. Before 1918, general elections were held over a two-week period. The side ahead in the first days of the election tended to benefit from an increasing advantage, which peaked on about the eighth day of voting.
The West Coast effect
In the United States the possibility of such an effect of early information has been discussed as the "West Coast effect", whereby voters in California and other western US states can be influenced by early results from the east coast, three hours ahead.
This issue became very salient in 1980 when NBC released an early prediction at 8:00pm New York time that Republican presidential candidate Ronald Reagan would beat Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter.
Polling companies do not tend to produce polls that skew results for partisan reasons.(Reuters: Daniel Acker)
The polls were still open in many western states at the time. Research found this early call had a discouraging effect on prospective Democrat voters, making them less likely to vote.
Given this converging evidence, it is no surprise partisan organisations tend to use favourable polls to push a winning narrative to their support base.
As a consequence of polls' possible strategic effect, polling companies are tightly regulated in modern democracies.
Polling companies do not tend to produce polls that skew results for partisan reasons. Whatever errors occur tend to be due to flaws in polling methodology, rather than being deliberate.
Manipulating betting markets
However, people who want to influence the public narrative about who is winning can influence something: betting markets.
These are used to estimate the candidates' winning chances. On these markets, people can put their money where their mouth is, and bet on the candidate they think will win.
But what if someone is willing to put a lot of money on a candidate they want to win, in a bid to skew the market predictions?
There is an incentive to manipulate betting markets' prices, to influence voters by suggesting a candidate's prospects are better than they actually are.
Research and experiments have shown that, in theory, such markets can be manipulated to move prices in one direction.
To do so in the real world would likely require spending many millions of dollars, But given the huge amounts spent in US campaigns, such expenditure is feasible.
Trump's chances overrated
In 2020, Trump's chances have been surprisingly high in betting markets given the polls. What does research say about this fact?
In past research, I have found political betting markets tend to be biased toward 50 per cent. That is, they tend to say the race is closer to 50/50 than it is. This bias is larger than on other types of betting markets (such as sports) — and would be expected if manipulators try to influence the prices.
I estimate the 35 per cent chance these betting markets are giving to a Trump win may be skewing the results by 15 percentage points — meaning Trump more accurately has a 20 per cent chance of victory.
For more accurate predictions, therefore, you are better looking at those from professional forecasters, such as Five Thirty Eight and The Economist.
In these forecasts Trump has only 5-12 per cent chance of winning. Importantly, Biden's advantage appears much firmer than what Clinton had in 2016.
But even these predictions may be overestimated. As pointed out by one of the best forecasters in the US, Columbia University statistician Andrew Gelman, professional forecasters have an interest in hedging their bets to preserve their reputation.
These low forecasts have a striking implication. Putting money on Biden now is a relatively safe bet.
It may also help move the betting market predictions in Biden's favour.
Lionel Page is professor in economics at University of Technology Sydney. This article originally appeared on The Conversation.
Watch
Duration: 4 minutes 28 seconds
4m 28s
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2020
- Messages
- 12,818
- Points
- 113
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2018
- Messages
- 16,422
- Points
- 113
So fun!!! Hunter kkj play with little chicks
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2008
- Messages
- 2,869
- Points
- 113
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2008
- Messages
- 2,869
- Points
- 113
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2008
- Messages
- 2,869
- Points
- 113
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 103,120
- Points
- 113
Whatever that's on Hunter Biden's laptop is super important. If you look beyond the sleaze, there's treason by the Obama administration hidden in plain sight.
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2008
- Messages
- 2,869
- Points
- 113
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2008
- Messages
- 2,869
- Points
- 113
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2008
- Messages
- 2,869
- Points
- 113
LOL, GOP senator Ted Cruz says the "fake Biden laptop story" changed "not a single voter's mind" 
Polls confirm the Donald J Trump campaign getting very desperate, 80 Million votes cast is already too late. October Surprise chances is dimming.
https://www.newsweek.com/ted-cruz-s...ations-dont-change-single-voters-mind-1542417
Ted Cruz Says Hunter Biden Allegations Don't Change 'A Single Voter's' Mind'
BY KATHERINE FUNG ON 10/27/20 AT 10:18 AM EDT
Senator Ted Cruz said he doesn't think the Trump campaign's attacks on Hunter Biden are working to change voters' minds.
"I don't think it moves a single voter," Cruz said in an interview on Axios on HBO following the final presidential debate last week.
Polls confirm the Donald J Trump campaign getting very desperate, 80 Million votes cast is already too late. October Surprise chances is dimming.
https://www.newsweek.com/ted-cruz-s...ations-dont-change-single-voters-mind-1542417
Ted Cruz Says Hunter Biden Allegations Don't Change 'A Single Voter's' Mind'
BY KATHERINE FUNG ON 10/27/20 AT 10:18 AM EDT
Senator Ted Cruz said he doesn't think the Trump campaign's attacks on Hunter Biden are working to change voters' minds.
"I don't think it moves a single voter," Cruz said in an interview on Axios on HBO following the final presidential debate last week.
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2020
- Messages
- 12,818
- Points
- 113
.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2012
- Messages
- 675
- Points
- 63
Fat fuck Trump is going to be packing his bags soon. HEE HEE HEE
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2018
- Messages
- 16,422
- Points
- 113
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2012
- Messages
- 675
- Points
- 63
Fat Fuck Loser piece of shit fucked up again today in Florida. HEE HEE
All over the news, loving how fucked in the head he is HEE HEE
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/donald-trump-threatens-take-care-22928099
Donald Trump threatens to 'take care of those son of a b*****s' as rally attendees spray water
The President asked if the people spraying water were 'friend or foe' as he felt it spray on his face
"Let's find out if they're friend or foe, and if they're foe, take care of those son of a b*****s."
It's understood the water was being sprayed by a truck at the back of the crowd, in order to cool down attendees in the 30 degree Florida heat.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2012
- Messages
- 675
- Points
- 63
And let us not forget the 7 people hospitalized after catching hypothermia in Nebraska as the Fat fuck campaign shit for brains forgot to pick these people up.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...zing-cold-omaha-airfield-after-rally-n1245065
Hundreds of Trump supporters stuck on freezing cold Omaha airfield after rally, 7 taken to hospitals
Overall, 30 people were "contacted" for medical reasons, the Omaha Police Department said in a statement.
Trump supporters left in cold following Omaha rally
OCT. 28, 202003:12
Oct. 28, 2020, 8:28 AM EDT / Updated Oct. 28, 2020, 2:36 PM EDT
By Geoff Bennett, Adela Suliman and Caroline Radnofsky
Hundreds of President Donald Trump's supporters were left in the freezing cold for hours after a rally at an airfield in Omaha, Nebraska, on Tuesday night, with some walking around 3 miles to waiting buses and others being taken away in ambulances.
Seven people were taken to hospitals suffering from a variety of conditions, and a total of 30 were "contacted" for medical reasons, the Omaha Police Department said in a statement. The Omaha Airport Authority had a slightly different figure for the number taken to hospitals — it said six were "throughout the duration of the event" and added that it could not confirm that the people were taken to hospitals because of the cold.
The temperature in the area was in the mid-30s at the time but as low as 27 degrees with wind chill.
President Donald Trump looks out at supporters at a campaign rally in Omaha, Neb., on Tuesday.Jonathan Ernst / Reuters
Many of those at the rally at the Eppley Airfield faced hours in long lines to get in and clogged parking lots and busy crowds to get out, hours after Air Force One departed around 9 p.m. The police said the last person was loaded onto a bus at the rally site at 11:50 p.m. — about three hours after the event had ended.
On Wednesday, Joe Biden said the incident was emblematic of "Trump's whole approach."
"Just look what happened last night in Omaha, after the Trump rally ended, hundreds of people, including older Americans and children, were stranded in subzero freezing temperatures for hours," Biden told reporters during a brief speech in Wilmington, Delaware. "Several folks ended up in the hospital. ... It's an image that captured President Trump's whole approach in this crisis. ... He makes a lot of big pronouncements, but they don't hold up."
On Wednesday, the Trump campaign said in a statement: "President Trump loves his supporters and was thrilled to visit Omaha last night. Despite the cold, tens of thousands of people showed up for his rally. Because of the sheer size of the crowd, we deployed 40 shuttle buses — double the normal allotment — but local road closures and resulting congestion caused delays. At the guest departure location, we had tents, heaters, generators, hot cocoa, and handwarmers available for guests. We always strive to provide the best guest experience at our events and we care about their safety."
Ahead of the event, police warned on Twitter that "Parking at the TRUMP rally is full."
"Is there any place you would rather be than a Trump rally on about a 10-degree evening? ... It's cold out here, but that's OK," Trump said as he arrived at Eppley Airfield wearing a heavy black coat and gloves.
Crowds cheered as he pretended to close up his coat.
Trump told the crowd that earlier Tuesday, he had been to Wisconsin and Michigan where it had also been freezing and raining, and he thanked the crowds for attending.
"I said I won't put on a hat because I'm going to show you how tough we are," he said.
"It was pouring and it was freezing. It is the coldest right here, right? It is an honor to be with you, I have to say. When we win, you win, Nebraska wins and all of America wins."
Geoff Bennett and Alexandra Bacallao reported from Omaha. Caroline Radnofsky and Adela Suliman reported from London.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...zing-cold-omaha-airfield-after-rally-n1245065
Hundreds of Trump supporters stuck on freezing cold Omaha airfield after rally, 7 taken to hospitals
Overall, 30 people were "contacted" for medical reasons, the Omaha Police Department said in a statement.
Trump supporters left in cold following Omaha rally
OCT. 28, 202003:12
Oct. 28, 2020, 8:28 AM EDT / Updated Oct. 28, 2020, 2:36 PM EDT
By Geoff Bennett, Adela Suliman and Caroline Radnofsky
Hundreds of President Donald Trump's supporters were left in the freezing cold for hours after a rally at an airfield in Omaha, Nebraska, on Tuesday night, with some walking around 3 miles to waiting buses and others being taken away in ambulances.
Seven people were taken to hospitals suffering from a variety of conditions, and a total of 30 were "contacted" for medical reasons, the Omaha Police Department said in a statement. The Omaha Airport Authority had a slightly different figure for the number taken to hospitals — it said six were "throughout the duration of the event" and added that it could not confirm that the people were taken to hospitals because of the cold.
The temperature in the area was in the mid-30s at the time but as low as 27 degrees with wind chill.
President Donald Trump looks out at supporters at a campaign rally in Omaha, Neb., on Tuesday.Jonathan Ernst / Reuters
Many of those at the rally at the Eppley Airfield faced hours in long lines to get in and clogged parking lots and busy crowds to get out, hours after Air Force One departed around 9 p.m. The police said the last person was loaded onto a bus at the rally site at 11:50 p.m. — about three hours after the event had ended.
On Wednesday, Joe Biden said the incident was emblematic of "Trump's whole approach."
"Just look what happened last night in Omaha, after the Trump rally ended, hundreds of people, including older Americans and children, were stranded in subzero freezing temperatures for hours," Biden told reporters during a brief speech in Wilmington, Delaware. "Several folks ended up in the hospital. ... It's an image that captured President Trump's whole approach in this crisis. ... He makes a lot of big pronouncements, but they don't hold up."
On Wednesday, the Trump campaign said in a statement: "President Trump loves his supporters and was thrilled to visit Omaha last night. Despite the cold, tens of thousands of people showed up for his rally. Because of the sheer size of the crowd, we deployed 40 shuttle buses — double the normal allotment — but local road closures and resulting congestion caused delays. At the guest departure location, we had tents, heaters, generators, hot cocoa, and handwarmers available for guests. We always strive to provide the best guest experience at our events and we care about their safety."
Ahead of the event, police warned on Twitter that "Parking at the TRUMP rally is full."
"Is there any place you would rather be than a Trump rally on about a 10-degree evening? ... It's cold out here, but that's OK," Trump said as he arrived at Eppley Airfield wearing a heavy black coat and gloves.
Crowds cheered as he pretended to close up his coat.
Trump told the crowd that earlier Tuesday, he had been to Wisconsin and Michigan where it had also been freezing and raining, and he thanked the crowds for attending.
"I said I won't put on a hat because I'm going to show you how tough we are," he said.
"It was pouring and it was freezing. It is the coldest right here, right? It is an honor to be with you, I have to say. When we win, you win, Nebraska wins and all of America wins."
Geoff Bennett and Alexandra Bacallao reported from Omaha. Caroline Radnofsky and Adela Suliman reported from London.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2012
- Messages
- 675
- Points
- 63
Fucking dipshit. I hope the FBI assassinates this fucker for our good
Similar threads
