In my opinion, President Trump sounds like he's speaking under duress. This video feels like a hostage video to me.
The video was posted on Twitter? I thought Twitter was the first to ban the President from their platform? Now all of a sudden they are the first to rescind their ban, for the sake of this video??? Twitter decided to unban the President for this one video? Twitter would have to know in advance what the President's video would be before they could unban him.
0:00 I would like to begin by
This video starts with "I would like to begin by" with zero context to begin what from. What is he beginning? As if it should already be clear for the listener what this topic will be. This is the first statement in over 24 hours! No one knows what this topic will be, so why are we being presumed to know it?
After introductions and condemning yesterday's events, he says, "America is and must always be a nation of law and order." These words describe the America of the present and demands of the future. Notice no mention of the past on how it was founded from enlightenment ideas of natural rights. Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -𝙏𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧 𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝙁𝙤𝙧𝙢 𝙤𝙛 𝙂𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙗𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙚𝙨 𝙙𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙨𝙚 𝙚𝙣𝙙𝙨, 𝙞𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙍𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙋𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙖𝙡𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙤𝙧 𝙩𝙤 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙝 𝙞𝙩, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙤 𝙞𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙩𝙪𝙩𝙚 𝙣𝙚𝙬 𝙂𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Donald Trump has fought against a "rigged system!" for 4 years. Just yesterday half of his 90 minute rally about criminals hijacking the country whom are now assuming power was about listing evidence after the evidence to support this fact. And now all of a sudden Twitter makes an exception to his internet banishment to say the opposite? A man that says an election was fraudulent does not believe in a nation of law and order. That's appears to me to be a statement under duress.
0:52 We must get on with the business of America
Sounds like something Trump would say about stock markets, not about a country that he believes has been stolen.
1:02 My only goal was to ensure the integrity of the vote. In so doing I was fighting to Defend American Democracy.
Trump's speech uses the qualifier My only goal as if before an apology. So only 24 hours after the President was screaming for transparent democracy, he is apologizing for defending it? Sorry, that's just not the mind of Donald John Trump. Further, perhaps most significantly of all. the President states Defend American Democracy, he does so with dramatically escalating emphasis on these 3 words than any other words in the entire video.
1:11 I continue to strongly believe that we must reform our "election laws"
Trump "talks with his hands" and uses a sarcastic tone for the only time in the video when he says,""election laws"". Trump can't desire "election law reform" if only yesterday he believed we have been cheated by a rigged system. He knows the law is meaningless because it's ignored. He knows how stupid that statement is.
1:28 A new administration will be inaugurated on January 20th.
Whether under duress or not, this is Donald John Trump conceding both as President and as one man. He's gone as far as one man can go. Whatever has happened over the last 24 hours, Donald John Trump has surrendered.
The biggest question and my greatest fear is why? And maybe more importantly how?
Preventing a Disrupted Presidential Election and Transition - Key Takeaways Post-Election
The Transition Integrity Project (TIP) was launched in late 2019 out of concern that the Trump Administration may seek to manipulate, ignore, undermine or disrupt the 2020 presidential election and transition process. TIP takes no position on how Americans should cast their votes, or on the likely winner of the upcoming election.
The concept of “election night,” is no longer accurate and indeed is dangerous. We face a period of contestation stretching from the first day a ballot is cast in mid-September until January 20. The winner may not, and we assess likely will not, be known on “election night” as officials count mail-in ballots. Campaigns, parties, the press and the public must be educated to adjust expectations starting immediately.
Plan for a contested election. Approach this as a political battle, not just a legal battle. In the event of electoral contestation, sustained political mobilization will likely be crucial for ensuring transition integrity.
Address the two biggest threats head on: lies about “voterfraud” and escalating violence. Voting fraud is virtually non-existent, but Trump lies about it to create a narrative designed to politically mobilize his base and to create the basis for contesting the results should he lose.
If President Trump’s future actions violate long-standing legal and ethical norms relating to presidential elections, there is also a risk that they will push other actors, including, potentially,some in the Democratic Party, to similarly engage in practices that depart from traditional rule of law norms, out of perceived self-defense.
What happens before Election Day will, to a large extent, determine the margin of contestation. Reporters, pollsters, pundits, political parties, and many others will communicate confidence or concern about the legitimacy of the election. Viral social media memes will play a role as well.
During the exercises, winning “the narrative” emerged as a potentially decisive factor. Either side can expand or contract the “margin of contestation” if they succeed in substantially changing how key decision makers and the public view the “facts,” the risks of action or inaction, or external events such as civil un-rest.
The exercises suggest that Trump and his supporters are likely to engage in an orchestrated disinformation campaign to shape the public’s perception—in fact, misperception—of the “facts” underpinning a dispute over electoral results.
Biden’s strategic assets include Democratic governors and Secretaries of State in swing states (notably in North Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin); a broadly shared sense in the Democratic Party that current voting systems, as well as the electoral college, are structurally anti-democratic; and a wide-spread and deeply-held desire, on the part of Democrats nationwide, to move on from the chaos of the Trump administration.
During the exercises, Team Biden and Democratic elected officials took the following steps: •Organizing 1,000 “influencers” to denounce efforts to steal the election. •Organizing all living presidents to stand with Biden and denounce Trump administration efforts to subvert the democratic process. •Recruiting moderate Republican Governors such as Baker (MA) and Hogan(MD) to form an “Election Protection” Coalition. •Working with local Democratic elected officials to call on the Adjutant General of the National Guard, along with representatives from the technology sector, to monitor vote counting. •Organizing a bipartisan “National Day for Restoration of Democracy” and a “National Day of Unity,” both including faith leaders. •Attempting a capital strike and a work stoppage as part of an overall effort to push corporate leaders to insist that all ballots to be counted.
At the same time,the scenario exercises also revealed that for many Democrats and key Democratic constituencies, this election represents an existential crisis, the last chance to stop a rapid and potentially irreversible US decline into authoritarianism and unbridled nativism. Some participants in the exercises observed that if former Vice President Biden wins the popular vote but loses the Electoral College, there will be political pressure from the Democratic Party’s rank and file and from independent grassroots organizations to prevent a second Trump term.
The exercise identified the following presidential powers as most likely to be misused to manipulate electoral outcomes or disrupt the transition: the President’s ability to federalize the national guard or invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy active duty military domestically; his ability to launch investigations into opponents; and his ability to use Department of Justice and/or the intelligence agencies to cast doubt on election results or discredit his opponents.
During the TIP exercises, teams playing GOP elected officials and political appointees most often acted in lockstep to support Team Trump. Where the GOP broke ranks, it could be decisive. There was one instance where four GOP Senators broke with Trump when the Congress considered the slate of electors, handing the victory to Biden.
During TIP’s exercises, Team Biden almost always called for and relied on mass protests to demonstrate the public’s commitment to a “legitimate” outcome, with the objective of hardening the resolve of Democratic elected officials to fight and take action, and to dramatize the stakes. As a practical matter, however, participants in the exercise noted that racial justice activists and others will likely act independently of the Biden campaign – players repeatedly cautioned that these social movements are independent, not beholden to, or a tool of, the Democratic party. Their support or Biden’s ability to mobilize them cannot be taken for granted. If anything, the scale of recent demonstrations has increased the stakes for the Democratic Party to build strong ties with grassroots organizations and be responsive to the movement’s demands.
The exercises suggest that there is a significant possibility of simultaneous street mobilizations by both Trump and Biden supporters, in which case the possibility for violence will increase significantly, and the actions of law enforcement will become critical.
There will likely not be an “election night” this year; unprecedented numbers of voters are expected to use mail-in ballots, which will almost certainly delay the certified result for days or weeks. A delay provides a window for campaigns, the media, and others to cast doubt on the integrity of the process and for escalating tensions between competing camps. As a legal matter, a candidate unwilling to concede can contest the election into January.
Planners need to take seriously the notion that this may well be a street fight, not a legal battle; technocratic solutions, courts, and a reliance on elites observing norms are not the answer here.
The news media has a particular responsibility to ready the public for the possibility that results will not be known on Election Night, to communicate election results accurately, and to plan to cover a contested election in a manner that reduces, rather than inflames, tensions.
Who are the key influencers in the media and among local activists who can affect political perceptions, and mobilize political action? Can they be approached and briefed on these issues now, to establish pre-commitments to playing a constructive role in the event of a contested election?
Groups, coalitions, and networks should be preparing now to establish the necessary communications and organizing infrastructure to support mass mobilization. If there is a crisis, almost every strategy to protect the democratic process is dependent on mass mobilization, and in particular, on people taking peacefully to the streets in large numbers, potentially for an extended period.
Trusted leaders and the media should publicly challenge President Trump’s claims of fraud, including that all mail-in ballots are fraudulent. This should be described as the first step of a strategy to interrupt or disregard the official results. Election officials and others in a position to launch large public information campaigns need to explain the long tradition of absentee voting as well as the safeguards in place to secure mail-in ballots and protect the results.
I was watching a news segment (against my will) the other day, and they presented the video of Dr. Stella Immanuel as misinformation and debunked. This story was on TV for about 15 seconds maximum.
Here is that same Global News story in article form: The argument of the article is that since one doctor believes in spirit demons, she is not credible. Well that's fine that one doctor isn't! But that doesn't mean the other doctors aren't credible either.
Well, here is another doctor with real credibility saying the same thing as that group of doctors. Global News, when can we expect the retraction?
The doctors in the video were criticizing this study. You have to go to bottom of the page to find the authors and the disclosure of conflict of interest which is here.. The argument of the doctors is that there is a massive conflict of interest here! The study was funded by EMS pharmaceuticals, "the biggest domestic pharmaceutical company in Brazil" with revenues exceeding 1 billion US dollars "which provided partial funding, the trial drugs, and logistic support." EMS pharma has a vested interest in making a profit off of profitable drugs. This study claims to discredit the validity of a marginally profitable, affordable, and well understood medicine that was approved decades ago while at the same time nations are investing billions of dollars of public money to development medicines. The US has bought up virtually all the stock of a key Covid-19 drug 'Remdesivir'.
Why is the media not addressing the valid, peer-reviewed concerns of this study? Peer-review is a fundamental component of the scientific method. Any doctor or scientist that cites this study without at-all addressing the conflict of interest has, in my view, failed in their most basic duty as proffesional scientists, and damages their own credibility.
Below this text I will quote the study's authors own declared conflicts of interests from the disclosure of conflict of interest attached to the study:
Author 1: "Dr. Avezum reports grants, non-financial support and other from EMS pharmaceutical industry, during the conduct of the study; "
Author 2: "Dr. Berwanger reports grants, non-financial support and other from EMS pharmaceutical industry, during the conduct of the study; grants from AstraZeneca, grants from Bayer, grants from Boehringer-Ingelheim, grants from BMS, grants from Servier, grants from Novartis, outside the submitted work"
Author 3: "Dr. Bleuel Amazonas reports personal fees from EMS, outside the submitted work; "
Author 4: "Dr. Bocchi de Oliveira reports personal fees from EMS, outside the submitted work"
Author 5: "Dr. Cardoso reports grants, non-financial support and other from EMS pharmaceutical industry, during the conduct of the study;"
Author 6: "Dr. Cavalcanti reports grants, non-financial support and other from EMS pharmaceutical industry, during the conduct of the study;"
Author 7: "Dr. Petri Damiani reports grants, non-financial support and other from EMS, during the conduct of the study; "
Author 8: "Dr. OLIVEIRA DE ABREU-SILVA reports grants, non-financial support and other from EMS pharmaceutical industry, during the conduct of the study"
Author 9: "Dr. de Barros e Silva reports grants, non-financial support and other from EMS, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from Pfizer, grants and personal fees from Roche Diagnostics, grants from Bayer, outside the submitted work; "
Author 10: "Dr. Echenique reports grants, non-financial support and other from EMS, during the conduct of the study;:"
Author 11: "Dr. Falavigna reports grants, non-financial support and other from EMS pharmaceutical industry, during the conduct of the study; other from HTAnalyze Consultoria e Treinamento LTDA, outside the submitted work; "
Author 12: "Dr. Freitas reports grants, non-financial support and other from EMS, during the conduct of the study;"
Author 13: "Dr. Furtado reports grants, non-financial support and other from EMS, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Servier, grants from DalCor, grants from Behring, grants from Jansen, grants from Novartis , grants from Novo Nordisk, outside the submitted work; ."
Author 14: "Dr. Gebara reports grants, non-financial support and other from EMS, during the conduct of the study;"
Author 15: "Dr. Golin reports grants, non-financial support and other from EMS, during the conduct of the study; "
Author 16: "Dr. Hoffmann Filho reports grants, non-financial support and other from EMS, during the conduct of the study; ."
Author 17: "Dr. Junqueira reports grants, non-financial support and other from EMS, during the conduct of the study; ."
Author 18: "Dr. Kawano-Dourado reports grants, non-financial support and other from EMS, during the conduct of the study; ."
Author 19: "Dr. Kormann reports grants, non-financial support and other from EMS, during the conduct of the study; ."
Author 20: "Dr. Laranjeira reports grants, non-financial support and other from EMS, during the conduct of the study; ."
Author 21: "Dr. Lisboa reports grants, non-financial support and other from EMS, during the conduct of the study; ."
Author 22: "Dr. Lopes reports grants, non-financial support and other from EMS, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Bayer, personal fees from Boehringer Ingleheim , grants and personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, grants and personal fees from Glaxo Smith Kline, grants and personal fees from Metronic, personal fees from Merck, grants and personal fees from Pfizer, grants and personal fees from Portola, grants and personal fees from Sanofi, outside the submitted work; "
Author 23: "Dr. Machado reports grants, non-financial support and other from EMS, during the conduct of the study; ."
Author 24: "Dr. Maia reports grants, non-financial support and other from EMS, during the conduct of the study; ."
Author 25: "Dr. Marcadenti reports grants, non-financial support and other from EMS, during the conduct of the study; ."
Author 26: "Dr. MILAN reports grants, non-financial support and other from EMS, during the conduct of the study; ."
Author 27: "Dr. Pereira reports grants, non-financial support and other from EMS, during the conduct of the study; "
Author 28: "Dr. Pontes Azevedo reports grants, non-financial support and other from EMS, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Halex Istar, personal fees from Baxter, personal fees from Pfizer, outside the submitted work"
Author 29: "Dr. Rosa reports grants, non-financial support and other from EMS, during the conduct of the study; ."
Author 30: "Dr. SOARES reports grants, non-financial support and other from EMS, during the conduct of the study; ."
Author 31: "Dr. Souza-Datas reports grants, non-financial support and other from EMS, during the conduct of the study; ."
Author 32: "Dr. Tramujas reports grants, non-financial support and other from EMS pharmaceutical industry, during the conduct of the study;"
Author 33: "Dr. Veiga reports grants, non-financial support and other from EMS, during the conduct of the study; ."
Author 34: "Dr. ZAMPIERI reports grants, non-financial support and other from EMS, during the conduct of the study; .
