destruction of america

[frankendat]

Electric cars are mostly bullshit. I have saved old cars from the crusher. I have not (and will not) own a new car, saving the environmental damage created from building a new car and I haven't procreated. I'm a god damned environmentalist. I can drive everywhere I want, pour my used motor oil in the alley, use plastic spoons and have a burn barrel and still be better for the world then these assholes driving 50k-100k electrics.

 

I said "mostly" because if they make an "electric for the people" like Volkswagen in 40's Germany. One that with a little training your half mechanical person could fix and/or maintain it, entry price around 10k AND the battery problems get sorted. THEN a first time car buyer could embark on a transportation life that from an environmental aspect - kicks my ass. I feel confident my environmental ass is safe.

[IZRL]

16 hours ago, Ooph! said:

Quote from the article

"California is also phasing out new gas-powered cars and mandating 100% electric vehicle sales by 2035. Nearly 20 other states have since adopted those rules, meaning more than 40% of the country will be affected by the mandate to some extent."

Going 100% electric has nothing to do with saving the planet. Sure, the end product(EVs) run clean, but where does that energy come from? Most electricity today comes from dirty fossil fuel plants. Also where are all these car batteries going to go? The process of "recycling" these batteries is very involved, expensive, dangerous and bad for the environment. Even now they're sending these batteries to other countries who cut corners when it comes to the environment to save a buck. On top of all that, the grid can barely handle what we need right now. California isn't capable of powering itself even now. They rely on power from other states. Rolling blackouts are not out of the ordinary in Cali. And surprise, surprise, what is Cali blaming for not being able to produce enough electricity and the rolling blackouts.....Global Warming 🤣.

 

What going to full electric is truly about is having more control over the population and added surveillance. First off, EVs are basically desktop computers on wheels. They also have a microphone and are littered with cameras. So right off the bat they know where you are at all times, and where you've been. They're going to convince this brainwashed airheaded population that for their safety and the safety of their families (worked like a charm during covid). They should allow for law enforcement/government to have remote access to their vehicles. And have the ability to control/disable vehicles, but only in case of emergency or to prevent car chases of course..😏.

 

Secondly, who the hell has the money to buy an new EV? People can barely keep a roof over their heads and feed their families. But buy a brand new EV sure why not. 

 

So most people can't afford an EV and the grid can barely supply what we need now. In my mind this means "if" you can afford a vehicle. The government decides the number of vehicles allowed per household and also decides if and when you can drive that vehicle. "Surviellance and Control".

 

Edited May 15 by IZRL

[datzenmike]

4 hours ago, Duncan said:

I read an article yesterday that China has come out with an electric car that gets around 250 miles per charge.  A few car manufacturers have gotten their hands on a few, and completely disassembled them down to every nut and bolt.  They all quietly agree that it is a very good quality car. The Chinese sell them in various countries for around $12k.  Their lobbyists immediately started lobbying for a ban on USA sales, and I see today that Brandon has now upped the tariff on Chinese Electric vehicles to 100%.

 

At $12k I would consider a little "in town" EV if it was good quality and had some service backup.  At $24k, I say GTFO on that.  Thanks Brandon.  I actually need a new daily driver, and I'm going to try to make my current driver last as long as possible.  With my age and health problems, I'll probably not make 2035, but I'm damn sure not EVER going to buy an EV as my sole transport.  

 

Just IMHO, of course.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure they have a high incidence of catching fire in China. Rolling crematoriums. Fuck China, would you use a Chinese parachute?

[john510]

Yeah I'm not too sure about a Chinese electric car for 12K. The battery would be a concern. And the thought that the longest lasting product made in China was the Covid virus. Biden putting a big tariff on those cars I can agree with. He learned that from Trump.

Edited May 15 by john510

[paradime]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

I read an article yesterday that China has come out with an electric car that gets around 250 miles per charge.  A few car manufacturers have gotten their hands on a few, and completely disassembled them down to every nut and bolt.  They all quietly agree that it is a very good quality car. The Chinese sell them in various countries for around $12k.  Their lobbyists immediately started lobbying for a ban on USA sales, and I see today that Brandon has now upped the tariff on Chinese Electric vehicles to 100%.

 

At $12k I would consider a little "in town" EV if it was good quality and had some service backup.  At $24k, I say GTFO on that.  Thanks Brandon.  I actually need a new daily driver, and I'm going to try to make my current driver last as long as possible.  With my age and health problems, I'll probably not make 2035, but I'm damn sure not EVER going to buy an EV as my sole transport.  

 

Just IMHO, of course.

 

 

 

Only rub is, you'd have to leave the country to get it at a decent price. Brandon's 100% tariff is basically a Big F you to China. We have a 220v charger at home and both our family DDs are plugin hybrids. Besides the occasional trip, they usually go for over a month without needing a fill up.

 

 To the rest of this thread; Our government is the biggest bureaucracy on the planet. Their power comes through our political system of manufactured consent. If you're looking for logic, you won't find it in either party's campaign rhetoric. Especially when it comes to immigration and oil policies. To understand what's behind their differences, you need look no further than the corporations who fund the manufacturing of "our" consent.

 

Despite all their persuasive rhetoric, neither party has done fuck all to update our antiquated federal immigration policy, or done fuck all to actually secure our boarders. There's always lots of two faced politicians who talk the border BS in every election season. As it is, the system works fine for our government and the corporations who profit from dirt cheep labor. It's an issue for us, not for them, so nothing changes.

 

For their time, our Datsun's were cutting edge, and simple at the same time. Fortunately, tires breaks, and wiper blades are the only maintenance EVs require. ICE engines for public transportation has gotten us a long way, and for many logical reasons, its time is up.

 

We've had this conversation before, but the writing is on the wall. With advancements in EV technology and manufacturing in the past 15 year, their performance and practicality has grown, while the price has gone down. The latest nano-carbon silicon anode batteries need no cobalt and require 85% less lithium, so they're smaller, 35% lighter, more stable, use cleaner materials that can be sourced locally while being far cheeper to produce. In terms of performance, they'll take an 80% charge in under 6 minute, handle over 10K charging cycles, and return 98.5% of that energy. All while delivering 3X as much energy per kg than the Chinese made lithium ion cell packs that are in most of the EVs today. According to a group of consumer auto market analysts, this would give a Tesla Model 3 a range of 643 miles, and cost 25% less to manufacture. At that point, it's RIP OPEC, and none too soon IM no so HO.

 

In terms of affordability, the cheapest ICE car is the $18,160 Mitsu Mirage. That gets you a 1.2L making 78hp @ 6k rpm, 11.3 sec 0-60 and come without AC or power windows. Cheapest EV is the $28,140 Nissan Leaf and with Fed and CA credits it's $20,640. That gets you 147hp @ 0 rpm, 7.5 sec 0-60, and a shit ton of standard stuff like AC and power windows. They both have seating for 5, and my guess is the mirage wouldn't even make it to 60 with that many people in it.

[datzenmike]

43 minutes ago, IZRL said:

Going 100% electric has nothing to do with saving the planet. Sure, the end product(EVs) run clean, but where does that energy come from? Most electricity today comes from dirty fossil fuel plants.

 

 

 

47% in house electricity is generated by natural gas, the rest is solar 14%, wind 7%, geothermal, biomass, 11%, hydro 11% (rain dependent), nuclear 9%. This only provides 68% of the need and 32% is imported. There is one small coal fired 53 megawatt plant producing 0.001% of total needed.

 

Where I am, 87% is hydro, 5% biomass, 4% wind and the rest natural gas, solar in off the grid areas. Site C on the peace river coming on line next year adds 1,100 megawatts. I suspect surplus is sold. Maybe California?

 

 

 

 

[datzenmike]

I consider myself fortunate to have been in my teens and early 20s during the muscle car era. Saw them all, drove a few and owned a new one. I saw the guts ripped out of all of them by rising emissions standards but had to move on and get over it. If not for this I would never have bought a new B-210 in '76. Maybe the change to electrics will take longer and the sense of loss also longer?

 

My wife has a Rav 4? I rarely drive it. Interesting to see the engine shut off at any stop and if you're light on the gas it gets you back up to speed before the engine come back on. Often shuts off when driving or coasting downhill on the highway. Engine powers the wheels and at same time charges the battery. Coasting, the wheels recharge the battery. It's a lot of recovered energy that's made use of. It has insane take off with engine and battery together.

[IZRL]

7 minutes ago, paradime said:

We've had this conversation before, but the writing is on the wall. With advancements in EV technology and manufacturing in the past 15 year, their performance and practicality has grown, while the price has gone down. The latest nano-carbon silicon anode batteries need no cobalt and require 85% less lithium, so they're smaller, 35% lighter, more stable, use cleaner materials that can be sourced locally while being far cheeper to produce. In terms of performance, they'll take an 80% charge in under 6 minute, handle over 10K charging cycles, and return 98.5% of that energy. All while delivering 3X as much energy per kg than the Chinese made lithium ion cell packs that are in most of the EVs today. According to a group of consumer auto market analysts, this would give a Tesla Model 3 a range of 643 miles, and cost 25% less to manufacture. At that point, it's RIP OPEC, and none too soon IM no so HO.

If the grid can't handle it. EVs getting cheaper and more efficient doesn't really make a difference.

 

We are a long ways away from getting our grid to be able to handle even 25% of gas vehicles being replaced by electric vehicles IMO. If I can see this as an average dumbass. You think the government doesn't know this? So ask yourself, what's their play here?

 

Short of the government saying fuck you guys, no more gas for you. So either you get an EV or you don't drive. I don't think much will be changing in the next 30 years. If you look at the entire picture, it's damn near impossible. I'll never buy an EV for the reasons I listed in my previous post, and I'm sure a majority of the population feels the same way.

[datzenmike]

 

 

 

Interesting times. He was not very good when president but these days he's off the charts fucked up. If you think this is some lefty propaganda I'm not going to care. It's still interesting. Explains a lot of his behavior.

[Ooph!]

1 hour ago, datzenmike said:

 

 

 

Interesting times. He was not very good when president but these days he's off the charts fucked up. If you think this is some lefty propaganda I'm not going to care. It's still interesting. Explains a lot of his behavior.

 

Is it ever ethical for doctors to diagnose patients they haven’t examined?

Allison Motluk

Author information Copyright and License information PMC Disclaimer

 

Psychiatrists should never provide professional opinions in the media about public figures they have not personally examined, the American Psychiatric Association reiterated in a statement. The association was reminding members about what is known as “The Goldwater Rule” — a guideline penned in 1973 after more than 1000 psychiatrists went public with views about US presidential candidate Barry Goldwater’s fitness to hold office, calling him, among other things, “a dangerous lunatic.”

[datzenmike]

It's not a diagnosis. They said analyzing. Watching someone driving all over the road, you don't need to administer a breath test to know they've been drinking.

[Ooph!]

2 hours ago, paradime said:

 

Only rub is, you'd have to leave the country to get it at a decent price. Brandon's 100% tariff is basically a Big F you to China. We have a 220v charger at home and both our family DDs are plugin hybrids. Besides the occasional trip, they usually go for over a month without needing a fill up.

 

 To the rest of this thread; Our government is the biggest bureaucracy on the planet. Their power comes through our political system of manufactured consent. If you're looking for logic, you won't find it in either party's campaign rhetoric. Especially when it comes to immigration and oil policies. To understand what's behind their differences, you need look no further than the corporations who fund the manufacturing of "our" consent.

 

Despite all their persuasive rhetoric, neither party has done fuck all to update our antiquated federal immigration policy, or done fuck all to actually secure our boarders. There's always lots of two faced politicians who talk the border BS in every election season. As it is, the system works fine for our government and the corporations who profit from dirt cheep labor. It's an issue for us, not for them, so nothing changes.

 

 

 

I agree with what you are saying here, the electric car part I'm still on the fence and it will take some convincing not mandates.

[frankendat]

4 hours ago, paradime said:

 

Only rub is, you'd have to leave the country to get it at a decent price. Brandon's 100% tariff is basically a Big F you to China. We have a 220v charger at home and both our family DDs are plugin hybrids. Besides the occasional trip, they usually go for over a month without needing a fill up.

 

 To the rest of this thread; Our government is the biggest bureaucracy on the planet. Their power comes through our political system of manufactured consent. If you're looking for logic, you won't find it in either party's campaign rhetoric. Especially when it comes to immigration and oil policies. To understand what's behind their differences, you need look no further than the corporations who fund the manufacturing of "our" consent.

 

Despite all their persuasive rhetoric, neither party has done fuck all to update our antiquated federal immigration policy, or done fuck all to actually secure our boarders. There's always lots of two faced politicians who talk the border BS in every election season. As it is, the system works fine for our government and the corporations who profit from dirt cheep labor. It's an issue for us, not for them, so nothing changes.

 

For their time, our Datsun's were cutting edge, and simple at the same time. Fortunately, tires breaks, and wiper blades are the only maintenance EVs require. ICE engines for public transportation has gotten us a long way, and for many logical reasons, its time is up.

 

We've had this conversation before, but the writing is on the wall. With advancements in EV technology and manufacturing in the past 15 year, their performance and practicality has grown, while the price has gone down. The latest nano-carbon silicon anode batteries need no cobalt and require 85% less lithium, so they're smaller, 35% lighter, more stable, use cleaner materials that can be sourced locally while being far cheeper to produce. In terms of performance, they'll take an 80% charge in under 6 minute, handle over 10K charging cycles, and return 98.5% of that energy. All while delivering 3X as much energy per kg than the Chinese made lithium ion cell packs that are in most of the EVs today. According to a group of consumer auto market analysts, this would give a Tesla Model 3 a range of 643 miles, and cost 25% less to manufacture. At that point, it's RIP OPEC, and none too soon IM no so HO.

 

In terms of affordability, the cheapest ICE car is the $18,160 Mitsu Mirage. That gets you a 1.2L making 78hp @ 6k rpm, 11.3 sec 0-60 and come without AC or power windows. Cheapest EV is the $28,140 Nissan Leaf and with Fed and CA credits it's $20,640. That gets you 147hp @ 0 rpm, 7.5 sec 0-60, and a shit ton of standard stuff like AC and power windows. They both have seating for 5, and my guess is the mirage wouldn't even make it to 60 with that many people in it.

Check your monitor, it seems tint is set to rose. I will never be convinced that it is possible to buy (consume) our way to a better environment. The electrical grid? The overwhelming majority of electricity in the United States coming from fossil fuels? The complexity of electrical vehicles exceeding the ability to maintain or repair by individual? (conceding that "new" gas and diesel computer controlled vehicles already exceed that ability, but I will not buy one of those either) True Batteries are better, but as said said elegantly in Pulp Fiction, "Well, let's not start suckin' each other's dicks quite yet." And we do not even need to go "conspiracy" about the opportunities for surveillance, loss of individual freedom, loss of freedom to travel, or general autonomy.  

[IZRL]

3 hours ago, frankendat said:

I will never be convinced that it is possible to buy (consume) our way to a better environment.

Exactly⬆️.. If you believe what the gov says and you believe they're pushing for 100% EV cause they want to save the planet. No part of this plan makes any sense. There has to be an ulterior motive behind the smoke.

 

Another reason EVs are shit for the planet in the short and long run that hasn't been brought up here is. Not only are they packing these EVs with toxic chemicles/materials that will end up in the soil, water, and air. A typical EV battery is made up of about 17 lbs Lithium Carbonate, 77 lbs Nickle, 44 lbs Manganese, and 30 lbs cobalt. There's gonna be some serious destruction and fuel consumption in getting this stuff out of the ground.

 

And lets not forget what the extreme cold and extreme heat does to batteries. They should put that in their pro EV schpiel.

Edited May 15 by IZRL

[john510]

8 hours ago, datzenmike said:

 

 

 

Interesting times. He was not very good when president but these days he's off the charts fucked up. If you think this is some lefty propaganda I'm not going to care. It's still interesting. Explains a lot of his behavior.

Well take a look at this. Mr. "YouTube is fake made up bullshit, anybody can make up and say anything they want" (Mike) posts a YouTube video bashing Trump ? You've always told us what a load of crap YouTube is and it shouldn't be paid attention to. So which is it ? I didn't watch it myself because the title pretty much narrows it down to what it says. I did hear a few minutes of Trump at his rally only because it was on the radio station I listen to. He sounds exactly as he always has.

[datzenmike]

How about you find one that explains Trump's fucked-upedness in a more positive light. One that lies the other way and cancels this one out. Go on, find some doctors or any lay person for that matter that say this is completely normal behavior. It was ok when Brandon was mumbling and fumbling on stage but point this out about Trumps accelerating decline and it's not ok? He needs to be somewhere where he can't hurt anyone. Talk about ignoring the elephant in the room. Pull head out and look.

 

One thing is for sure it does not get better and it doesn't level off, it will get even worse. There's still time to change the candidate but it will take resolve. By Nov 5th it will be too late. It's unlikely he will win but there will be trouble.

[datzenmike]

3 hours ago, IZRL said:

 

 

Another reason EVs are shit for the planet in the short and long run that hasn't been brought up here is. Not only are they packing these EVs with toxic chemicles/materials that will end up in the soil, water, and air.

 

 

Other than catching fire how would these chemicals/materials end up in the soil, water and air? Are they worse than burning fossil fuels out the tail pipe? not to mention drills and spills from oil transport accidents and leaded gas of the past? It's still out there in the environment. Every solution has compromises.  

[IZRL]

6 hours ago, datzenmike said:

Other than catching fire how would these chemicals/materials end up in the soil, water and air? Are they worse than burning fossil fuels out the tail pipe? not to mention drills and spills from oil transport accidents and leaded gas of the past? It's still out there in the environment. Every solution has compromises.  

1. Have you ever burned a Double AA battery?...😳Holy Shit!

 

2. Exactly the same way plastics, chemicles, and metals have always ended up in the soil, water, and air.

 

3. Worse...We already established that the drilling, burning, and spilling of oil will continue to keep up with the higher demand for electricity. Now we're adding batteries that WILL leak lithium phosphate gases and liquid electrolytes. Are we seriously gonna pretend that these chemicals are somehow gonna be magically contained? What about the increase in the mining of lithium and metals necessary to make these half ton batteries.

Edited May 15 by IZRL

[datzenmike]

Christ I said other than burning. Is burning EV batteries the way they dispose of them? Only in accidents. If not 'recycling' them, store them in an old mine.

 

I was comparing total conversion to EVs to previous use of oil powered. Trading one polluting technology for another. And yes, during the change over (if it is ever complete) there will be both types of pollution. Not all batteries catch fire. 

[paradime]

13 hours ago, IZRL said:

If the grid can't handle it. EVs getting cheaper and more efficient doesn't really make a difference.

 

We are a long ways away from getting our grid to be able to handle even 25% of gas vehicles being replaced by electric vehicles IMO. If I can see this as an average dumbass. You think the government doesn't know this? So ask yourself, what's their play here?

 

Short of the government saying fuck you guys, no more gas for you. So either you get an EV or you don't drive. I don't think much will be changing in the next 30 years. If you look at the entire picture, it's damn near impossible. I'll never buy an EV for the reasons I listed in my previous post, and I'm sure a majority of the population feels the same way.

 

9 hours ago, frankendat said:

Check your monitor, it seems tint is set to rose. I will never be convinced that it is possible to buy (consume) our way to a better environment. The electrical grid? The overwhelming majority of electricity in the United States coming from fossil fuels? The complexity of electrical vehicles exceeding the ability to maintain or repair by individual? (conceding that "new" gas and diesel computer controlled vehicles already exceed that ability, but I will not buy one of those either) True Batteries are better, but as said said elegantly in Pulp Fiction, "Well, let's not start suckin' each other's dicks quite yet." And we do not even need to go "conspiracy" about the opportunities for surveillance, loss of individual freedom, loss of freedom to travel, or general autonomy.  

 

I'm not a car salesman trying to convince you to buy an EV, but I'm not ignorant enough to bury my head in the sand and ignore reality. You can stop being hyperbolic, because no one is going to take all our ICE vehicles off the road, or stop producing the fuel to run them. It doesn't make you a communist hippie environmentalist to read the writing on the wall. 

 

If we're being unrealistic for sake of argument; if every rooftop in the US had mono-crystaline solar panels, it would generate 1,800 trillion terawatt hours of electricity per year, or about 45% of our total use. With modern solid-state battery arrays, the ability to store that energy on an industrial scale is in production right now. My brother Ken is the CFO of such a company who is doing this in cooperation with the Canadian gov, and they already have contract orders with the US military to secure there needs. He's not a rose tinted hippie, he's a modern capitalist with 25 years of investment experience. You can keep your head in the sand, but like it or not guys, here it comes. 

[IZRL]

43 minutes ago, datzenmike said:

Christ I said other than burning. Is burning EV batteries the way they dispose of them? Only in accidents. If not 'recycling' them store them in an old mine.

 

I was comparing total conversion to EVs to previous use of oil powered. Trading one polluting technology for another. And yes, during the change over (if it is ever complete) there will be both types of pollution. Not all batteries catch fire. 

I never said they were going to burn batteries to dispose of them. I meant accidents happen, and when batteries burn it's not you're typical camp fire.

 

Really? They are mandating stopping the production of combustion vehicles in 10 years. How many years do you guesstimate before the world completely weans off their primary source of energy and we stop producing both types of pollution?

 

My guess is that at best, we will keep using the same amount of fossil fuels to keep up with the increased demand of electricity. So again, I call BS on the excuse that all this is being done to save the planet. 

Edited May 15 by IZRL

[IZRL]

36 minutes ago, paradime said:

If we're being unrealistic for sake of argument; if every rooftop in the US had mono-crystaline solar panels, it would generate 1,800 trillion terawatt hours of electricity per year, or about 45% of our total use. With modern solid-state battery arrays, the ability to store that energy on an industrial scale is in production right now. My brother Ken is the CFO of such a company who is doing this in cooperation with the Canadian gov, and they already have contract orders with the US military to secure there needs. He's not a rose tinted hippie, he's a modern capitalist with 25 years of investment experience. You can keep your head in the sand, but like it or not guys, here it comes. 

The government's plan is unrealistic. This plan is equally unrealistic. So what are we even talking about here?

Edited May 15 by IZRL

[yenpit]

17 hours ago, datzenmike said:

 

 

 

Interesting times. He was not very good when president but these days he's off the charts fucked up. If you think this is some lefty propaganda I'm not going to care. It's still interesting. Explains a lot of his behavior.

 

There is talk of making a video like this of you......................🤣🤪😆

[frankendat]

2 hours ago, paradime said:

 

 

I'm not a car salesman trying to convince you to buy an EV, but I'm not ignorant enough to bury my head in the sand and ignore reality. You can stop being hyperbolic, because no one is going to take all our ICE vehicles off the road, or stop producing the fuel to run them. It doesn't make you a communist hippie environmentalist to read the writing on the wall. 

 

If we're being unrealistic for sake of argument; if every rooftop in the US had mono-crystaline solar panels, it would generate 1,800 trillion terawatt hours of electricity per year, or about 45% of our total use. With modern solid-state battery arrays, the ability to store that energy on an industrial scale is in production right now. My brother Ken is the CFO of such a company who is doing this in cooperation with the Canadian gov, and they already have contract orders with the US military to secure there needs. He's not a rose tinted hippie, he's a modern capitalist with 25 years of investment experience. You can keep your head in the sand, but like it or not guys, here it comes. 

You might not be a car salesman, but you are supporting their narrative and it is a narrative based in deception.

I am not opposed to solar power; I hope it gets better, but I am a realist.

Your brother is at the right place at the right time, solar panels on homes in some areas make sense, for a narrow but justifiable set of individuals. I would have solar on my house, but I have run the numbers and can't afford the LUXURY. I'm in one of the few States that has enough sunny days, in an location that receives the sun unblocked (for now) by trees or buildings and am approached every year to go solar. When the sales pitch ends and the numbers speak the truth, it falls short for someone without the funds. Oh they will tell you of the money saved and how easy it is to refinance or take a home equity loan, but I knew many who lost their homes in the not too long ago recession and I have a hard enough time trying to stop the government stealing my home. Some of my new rich neighbors have solar setups. They also pay a service to come by and keep them clean, apparently they aren't worth a shit when they get dusty. They also aren't worth a shit when it is cold, or in the winter, whichever, because even on sunny winter days (when they are not covered with snow or frost) not so good.

So, yes, solar works, if you can afford it, but it has many downsides. It shouldn't even be cause for a debate. If you want a solar car or roof, I do not need to know your reasoning-good for you. But, don't try to mandate for or legislate against alternatives. I don't like the solar "tax credit" or any other tax incentive behavioral trap. I will vote for someone who has a plan to stabilize the economy or strengthen our position in the world over someone who has a plan to be off fossil fuel by XXXX every time.

 

You're right "It doesn't make you a communist hippie environmentalist to read the writing on the wall."

It makes you one for not fighting it 

Edited May 15 by frankendat

[john510]

10 hours ago, datzenmike said:

How about you find one that explains Trump's fucked-upedness in a more positive light. One that lies the other way and cancels this one out. Go on, find some doctors or any lay person for that matter that say this is completely normal behavior. It was ok when Brandon was mumbling and fumbling on stage but point this out about Trumps accelerating decline and it's not ok? He needs to be somewhere where he can't hurt anyone. Talk about ignoring the elephant in the room. Pull head out and look.

 

One thing is for sure it does not get better and it doesn't level off, it will get even worse. There's still time to change the candidate but it will take resolve. By Nov 5th it will be too late. It's unlikely he will win but there will be trouble.

Well first of all I can think for myself and form my own opinion without the help of the media or some crap on YouTube. Try it. I honestly have no idea what rapid decline in Trump you're talking about. For being close to 80 he's actually pretty sharp and full of energy. He's the same guy he was  seven years ago. He usually doesn't have a script or teleprompter and just speaks his mind. I realize you don't see it that way because your hatred has clouded your ability to think rationally about anything Trump related. Now Biden ? Even his own party makes fun of him and knows how shot his mind is. They keep him away from the media as much as possible for good reason. When he does have to speak it's rumored his doctors are juicing him up because he's a totally different person. That I could believe. His latest episode he's walking and just stops with a blank stare on his face and appears to be shitting his pants. WTF that was about nobody knows. You got caught showing that hypocrisy about YouTube. LOL.