Lysol maker issues warning after Trump's comments

And maybe President Trump just wanted people to look at what's in a vaccine...since it's our right to know what's in that needle...just saying.

It's interesting how Dr Brix didn't respond at all each time he looked over at her for confirmation...with each suggested possible "treatment" he proposed...just saying.

Zanting said:

And maybe President Trump just wanted people to look at what's in a vaccine...since it's our right to know what's in that needle...just saying.

Click to expand...

Zanting said:

It's interesting how Dr Brix didn't respond at all each time he looked over at her for confirmation...with each suggested possible "treatment" he proposed...just saying.

Click to expand...

What do you imagine your Dr’s response might be if you asked him/her to inject you with disinfectant or shine a UV lamp into your lungs? Sometimes ‘speechless’ is the only sane response.

“Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him.”
‭‭Proverbs‬ ‭26:4‬ ‭NIV‬‬
Proverbs 26:4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. | New International Version (NIV) | Download The Bible App Now

Tom 1 said:

No smarts required on the collusion. Russia gave the nudge and wink and did all the background work, Trump grudgingly accepted it then managed to convince himself he won without any supporting misinformation campaigns. More of a passive role.

Click to expand...

He even admitted that he would look at information provided by Russia in an interview. That is actually not allowed. Trump should be his own worst enemy, but is supporters tend to wear blinders.

Tom 1 said:

No smarts required on the collusion. Russia gave the nudge and wink and did all the background work, Trump grudgingly accepted it then managed to convince himself he won without any supporting misinformation campaigns. More of a passive role.

Click to expand...

And yet this was not one of the articles of impeachment against Trump. If the Dems had evidence they would have included it in the articles.

Tom 1 said:

What do you imagine your Dr’s response might be if you asked him/her to inject you with disinfectant or shine a UV lamp into your lungs? Sometimes ‘speechless’ is the only sane response.

“Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him.”
‭‭Proverbs‬ ‭26:4‬ ‭NIV‬‬
Proverbs 26:4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. | New International Version (NIV) | Download The Bible App Now

Click to expand...

What else is in there???? Hmmm...maybe MRC-5...and ...and...just sayin'

I'm gonna partake in another suggested treatment presented by William N Bryan...and such a simple one...and go for a long walk along the river in the sun on this warm and sunny day...

Ultraviolet blood irradiation: Is it time to remember “the cure that time forgot”?

packermann said:

And yet this was not one of the articles of impeachment against Trump. If the Dems had evidence they would have included it in the articles.

Click to expand...

Passive acceptance would probably not rise to the level of impeachment as far as crimes go. And remember, in the trial the Senate did not even allow any evidence. That is very akin to trials of white people that were accused of attacking African Americans in the South before we finally had some civil rights reform. All white juries ignored all of the evidence and returned Not Guilty verdicts. The Senate went one step further and did not even allow the presentation of evidence in the impeachment trial.

packermann said:

And yet this was not one of the articles of impeachment against Trump. If the Dems had evidence they would have included it in the articles.

Click to expand...

That’s the general background story. Intelligence agencies around the world agree on the Russian campaign, there’s plenty of circumstantial evidence suggesting that Trump and his closest associates were at the very least made aware of some details of that at different times. If there ever is a real trial perhaps there will be an opportunity to air the evidence without the continual attacks on the legal process.

Zanting said:

What else is in there???? Hmmm...maybe MRC-5...and ...and...just sayin'

I'm gonna partake in another suggested treatment presented by William N Bryan...and such a simple one...and go for a long walk along the river in the sun on this warm and sunny day...

Ultraviolet blood irradiation: Is it time to remember “the cure that time forgot”?

Click to expand...

Possibly of use against bacterial infection. Viruses, not so much. Do you know why?

Tom 1 said:

What do you imagine your Dr’s response might be if you asked him/her to inject you with disinfectant or shine a UV lamp into your lungs? Sometimes ‘speechless’ is the only sane response.

“Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him.”
‭‭Proverbs‬ ‭26:4‬ ‭NIV‬‬
Proverbs 26:4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. | New International Version (NIV) | Download The Bible App Now

Click to expand...

Those proverbs are the best part of the bible, imho.

Well, that and the sermon on the mount, but that's not as relevant to modern day life.

Zanting said:

What else is in there???? Hmmm...maybe MRC-5...and ...and...just sayin'

I'm gonna partake in another suggested treatment presented by William N Bryan...and such a simple one...and go for a long walk along the river in the sun on this warm and sunny day...

Ultraviolet blood irradiation: Is it time to remember “the cure that time forgot”?

Click to expand...

Remember to go naked to maximise your light exposure.

Nithavela said:

Well, that and the sermon on the mount, but that's not as relevant to modern day life.

Click to expand...

Dairy products are still popular.

Michael said:

Click to expand...

Awesome! Time for a corona party, the bleach is on me!

Subduction Zone said:

Passive acceptance would probably not rise to the level of impeachment as far as crimes go.

Click to expand...

They could have produced evidence than he was in contact with Russia and colluded with Russia. For the last three years Dems argued that this was an impeachable offence. Not you admit that it was not.

And remember, in the trial the Senate did not even allow any evidence.

Click to expand...

First of all, the House did not allow the Defence for Trump to present any witnesses.

Second, it is common practice that the Senate only look at the evidence already collected in the House. If the House did not thoroughly investigate the evidence then that is on them.

Third, the only reason that the Dems wanted to open more evidence was because they wanted the trial to go on until the election to ruin Trumps chances of winning.

That is very akin to trials of white people that were accused of attacking African Americans in the South before we finally had some civil rights reform. All white juries ignored all of the evidence and returned Not Guilty verdicts. The Senate went one step further and did not even allow the presentation of evidence in the impeachment trial.

Click to expand...

Not really. The evidence was presented in the House already. If there were more evidence then the House should have presented them.

packermann said:

They could have produced evidence than he was in contact with Russia and colluded with Russia. For the last three years Dems argued that this was an impeachable offence. Not you admit that it was not.

Click to expand...

I see that you did not follow the events. Trump was open to having Russia help him, but there was no evidence of collusion with Russia. Do you understand the difference? Actively seeking help would definitely have been impeachable, taking advantage of what Russia wanted to do on its own is not quite up to that level.

First of all, the House did not allow the Defence for Trump to present any witnesses.

Click to expand...

Not true and immaterial. The House's job was to see if there was enough evidence to charge him. That was not a trial. It is akin to the Grand Jury process where the defense has very little input. D

Second, it is common practice that the Senate only look at the evidence already collected in the House. If the House did not thoroughly investigate the evidence then that is on them.

Click to expand...

Not in an impeachment. They are supposed to go over all of the evidence. That is where evidence for the defense would be presented. The House did thoroughly investigate. The Senate knew that. There really was no excuse for Trump's behavior. Again, defense evidence would be presented in the actual trial, just as it is in a criminal trial.

Third, the only reason that the Dems wanted to open more evidence was because they wanted the trial to go on until the election to ruin Trumps chances of winning.

Click to expand...

No, they wanted actual justice. But we can't have that.

Not really. The evidence was presented in the House already. If there were more evidence then the House should have presented them.

Click to expand...

Now you are just repeating failed arguments.

Hammster said:

I think you are reading it as “And I then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute, and there is a way you can do something like that by injection inside“ instead of what he actually said.

It’s in front of your eyes.

Click to expand...

That Trump was suggesting to look at somehow using a disinfectant inside the human body, perhaps by injection. Yep.

Word for word quote --

"And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?

"So it'd be interesting to check that."

And Trump tells us he was only being sarcastic, which sincerely I think less than 1% of people would believe if they watch the video. People at Fox News openly say it was not sarcasm. No one believed that follow up lying.

But here's something less trivial at this point. A a far more significant question to me -- why in the world do people, I don't mean you, but any people, have a special devotion to Trump that is unlike their devotion to their own governor or senator or local mayor, etc? Why Trump? Why is Trump trusted so much more than other human beings by some? Better to trust say a good preacher over a politician who spins so much he says. But of course for special devotion, it should be only to our Lord.

Zanting said:

Well the media ran like little mice to spill the beans...For the POTUS it was all about exposing their bias...and they misquoted him to boot...but you guys never get his humour anyway...so ultimately it depends on whose camp you're in as to who the idiot is...LOL

Click to expand...

No! The media stood up and fulfilled one of their key roles: they highlighted the incompetence and ignorance and foolishness of the President of the USA. Don't blame the messenger for reporting the contents of the message. Lay the blame squarely on the source of the message.

Halbhh said:

"And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?...So it'd be interesting to check that."

Click to expand...

On the basis of the clear meaning of this statement, there is no reason at all for attributing to the President all the ideas that have been conjured up in order to find fault somehow or other.

None of them is substantiated by the plain wording of the quotation you yourself chose to present.

This is just sad.

I don’t know what’s worse.. That the president is musing about a completely idiotic treatment no rational adult would ever take seriously, or that there are supporters of his still willing to defend his ridiculous statements.

You guys really are meant for each other.

What an interesting way to throw in the towel.