Just two days before the election, Trump trails Biden by 10

CNBC:

In the closing days of the campaign, Biden takes a 10-point lead over Trump, garnering support of 52% of registered voters nationally versus 42% for Trump. That's slightly down from Biden's 11-point lead in the NBC News/WSJ poll from two weeks ago.

Six-in-10 voters said the country is on the wrong track under the president's leadership and a majority disapproved of Trump's handling of the pandemic, according to the current poll. A majority of voters, 51%, said there's no chance they'd support Trump, while 40% said the same for Biden.

The poll finds that a majority of voters, 52%, disapprove of Trump's job performance, while 45% approve. 55% of voters approve of how the president has handled the economy. But 57% disapprove of the president's handling of the pandemic, while just 40% approve.

Biden's key advantages are among Black voters (Biden has 87% to Trump's 5%), voters ages 18-34 (60% to 32%), seniors (58% to 35%), women (57% to 37%), whites with college degrees (56% to 41%) and independents (51% to 36%).

Trump takes the lead among white voters (51% to 45%) and whites without degrees (58% to 37%). He also takes a narrow 1-point lead among men (48% to 47%).

Ben Reilly wrote:CNBC:

In the closing days of the campaign, Biden takes a 10-point lead over Trump, garnering support of 52% of registered voters nationally versus 42% for Trump. That's slightly down from Biden's 11-point lead in the NBC News/WSJ poll from two weeks ago.

Six-in-10 voters said the country is on the wrong track under the president's leadership and a majority disapproved of Trump's handling of the pandemic, according to the current poll. A majority of voters, 51%, said there's no chance they'd support Trump, while 40% said the same for Biden.

The poll finds that a majority of voters, 52%, disapprove of Trump's job performance, while 45% approve. 55% of voters approve of how the president has handled the economy. But 57% disapprove of the president's handling of the pandemic, while just 40% approve.

Biden's key advantages are among Black voters (Biden has 87% to Trump's 5%), voters ages 18-34 (60% to 32%), seniors (58% to 35%), women (57% to 37%), whites with college degrees (56% to 41%) and independents (51% to 36%).

Trump takes the lead among white voters (51% to 45%) and whites without degrees (58% to 37%). He also takes a narrow 1-point lead among men (48% to 47%).

Biden is leading where he needs to. He will win most of the battleground states. Trump might win Florida, Ohio and Iowa. That wont be nearly enough.

The only interesting thing for me Tuesday night is who controls the Senate and if Jo can get 5% nationally and close to 10 in a couple if states.

And if Cotton loses in Arkansas since there isn't a Democratic challenger.

I'm more interested in what will happen with the transfer of power at this point. Don't forget that Trump has surrounded himself with hard-core loyalists. I'm hoping it will turn out to be a political Y2K, but there could be a mess, not to mention violence in the streets.

Polls are bullshit!

Ben Reilly wrote:I'm more interested in what will happen with the transfer of power at this point. Don't forget that Trump has surrounded himself with hard-core loyalists. I'm hoping it will turn out to be a political Y2K, but there could be a mess, not to mention violence in the streets.

Don't forget he has two months to do want he wants.

Could be interesting if he throws a fit. Or he could pardon a few thousand people.

It will l be fun.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Polls are bullshit!

o

Polls are accurate down to about 3-4 points. That's why we know who will win every state except for half dozen or so that are within 3-4 points.


On a national basis, it doesn't matter if the number ends up being 6, 10 or 14 pts. Any of those 3 will be enough for Biden.

Ok... If you say so...





Last time round polls predicted 90-98% chance of Hillary Clinton being new president...

Tommy Monk wrote:


Ok... If you say so...





Last time round polls predicted 90-98% chance of Hillary Clinton being new president...

I think it was about 90.

No doubt Trump beat about 6 polls by about 3%. He won some states with a less than 1% advantage. Hes going to need to beat this polls by 6%. He didnt do that last time, nor has anyone to my knowledge.

I guess there's always that chance.

We have had a massive turnout already and it's not even election day. Those new voters could be for Trump I guess, but I seriously doubt that.

Trump needs 11 million more votes than he got last time. Ain't happening.

Tommy Monk wrote:Polls are bullshit!

There's some validity to that, tommy.  Some pollsters say that the reason why polls showed a Trump defeat right up until the end in 2016 is because for various reasons Trump supporters were shy to admit their support for Trump.  Thus, the polls undercounted Trump.

Polls depend upon answers to questions.  Respondents can give whatever answer they want because it doesn't count; only the actual vote counts.  If anything affects or interrupts the answer, it could lead to a false report.  It's called Response Bias:

Wiki wrote:Response bias can be induced or caused by numerous factors, all relating to the idea that human subjects do not respond passively to stimuli, but rather actively integrate multiple sources of information to generate a response in a given situation. Because of this, almost any aspect of an experimental condition may potentially bias a respondent. Examples include the phrasing of questions in surveys, the demeanor of the researcher, the way the experiment is conducted, or the desires of the participant to be a good experimental subject and to provide socially desirable responses may affect the response in some way.   All of these "artifacts" of survey and self-report research may have the potential to damage the validity of a measure or study. Compounding this issue is that surveys affected by response bias still often have high reliability, which can lure researchers into a false sense of security about the conclusions they draw.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Response_bias

Some pundits report that people are embarrassed by their support for Trump—who, let's face it, talks openly about "grabbing pussy" and praises white supremacists and openly lies repeatedly...things that are hardly 'presidential'—and therefore in face-to-face encounters with pollsters, they are reluctant to openly admit their preference.

It follows that some polls might be underreporting support for Trump.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Polls are bullshit!

There's some validity to that, tommy.  Some pollsters say that the reason why polls showed a Trump defeat right up until the end in 2016 is because for various reasons Trump supporters were afraid to admit their support for Trump.  Thus, the polls undercounted Trump.

Polls depend upon answers to questions.  Respondents can give whatever answer they want because it doesn't count; only the actual vote counts.  If anything affects or interrupts the answer, it could lead to a false report.  It's called Response Bias:

Wiki wrote:Response bias can be induced or caused by numerous factors, all relating to the idea that human subjects do not respond passively to stimuli, but rather actively integrate multiple sources of information to generate a response in a given situation. Because of this, almost any aspect of an experimental condition may potentially bias a respondent. Examples include the phrasing of questions in surveys, the demeanor of the researcher, the way the experiment is conducted, or the desires of the participant to be a good experimental subject and to provide socially desirable responses may affect the response in some way.   All of these "artifacts" of survey and self-report research may have the potential to damage the validity of a measure or study. Compounding this issue is that surveys affected by response bias still often have high reliability, which can lure researchers into a false sense of security about the conclusions they draw.

Some pundits report that people are embarrassed by their support for Trump—who, let's face it, talks openly about "grabbing pussy" and praises white supremacists and openly lies repeatedly...things that are hardly 'presidential'—and therefore in face-to-face encounters with pollsters, they are reluctant to openly admit their preference.

It follows that some polls might be underreporting support for Trump.

Which is why polls report a margin for error. Most polls fall within that margin even when they are not 100% accurate.

That's why it's good to look at multiple polls. You can get an idea where the close races are, and the ones that are sure deal.

No, "margin for error" is a statistical tool that is built into the math.  The "mean standard deviation" is the variance within which the sample might differ, or deviate from the whole population.

"Response bias" is an attitudinal alteration in the respondent's own answer.

Original Quill wrote:No, "margin for error" is a statistical tool that is built into the math.  The "mean standard deviation" is the variance within which the sample might differ, or deviate from the whole population.

"Response bias" is an attitudinal alteration in the respondent's own answer.

OK, the margin for error is a mathematical calculation based on the size of the sample. Quantity of data, where response bias is more of a quality of data issue that may or may not be less of a problem as you increase the sample size.

Whether is a quantity or quality issue, most polls fall within the margin of error.

Polls are bullshit... And I'd like to add... They can definitely influence voters in a number of ways... So should be banned...

Maddog wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Ok... If you say so...





Last time round polls predicted 90-98% chance of Hillary Clinton being new president...

I think it was about 90.

No doubt Trump beat about 6 polls by about 3%. He won some states with a less than 1% advantage. Hes going to need to beat this polls by 6%. He didnt do that last time, nor has anyone to my knowledge.

I guess there's always that chance.

We have had a massive turnout already and it's not even election day. Those new voters could be for Trump I guess, but I seriously doubt that.

The Huffington post claimed 98% Hillary Clinton win.


Look it up...

Tommy Monk wrote:Polls are bullshit... And I'd like to add... They can definitely influence voters in a number of ways... So should be banned...

Really good point...polls may be bullshite.  But do you have any evidence to support your other argument...that polls have an influence on voter choice?

It's one thing to say the polls are themselves inaccurate.  But it's quite another thing to say polls have any effect on voter choice.  Elections are competitive, but intuition tells us that they don't determine which way people vote, but that people must get out and vote.  The polar opposite to partisanship is voter apathy, not the choice itself.

Some people are swayed by what they perceive as being promoted to them as the best/popular/most acceptable/right choice, and will subsequently more likely 'go with the flow' of that influence... to deny any influence of voter choice in this is akin to claiming that advertising has absolutely no effect on consumers either...


Also... Heavy biased polling towards one candidate could well have a counter productive effect on end result by making people think that this preferred candidate will win hands down anyway, so they don't really need to bother adding their small number to the tally in their favour, while conversely it could invigorate supporters of the other candidate who is repeatedly shown in polls to be the loser in end result, thus making many more of them actually get out and vote... And all of that could well end with a result that would have otherwise not happened without this influence on voters...


So... The question is... Are polls there to give an accurate insight and prediction on voting intentions?


Or are they there to influence and/or manipulate voters and behaviour...?


I would say that they don't do the former... But definitely do the latter...

Tommy Monk wrote:Some people are swayed by what they perceive as being promoted to them as the best/popular/most acceptable/right choice, and will subsequently more likely 'go with the flow' of that influence... to deny any influence of voter choice in this is akin to claiming that advertising has absolutely no effect on consumers either...

Also... Heavy biased polling towards one candidate could well have a counter productive effect on end result by making people think that this preferred candidate will win hands down anyway, so they don't really need to bother adding their small number to the tally in their favour, while conversely it could invigorate supporters of the other candidate who is repeatedly shown in polls to be the loser in end result, thus making many more of them actually get out and vote... And all of that could well end with a result that would have otherwise not happened without this influence on voters...

So... The question is... Are polls there to give an accurate insight and prediction on voting intentions?

Or are they there to influence and/or manipulate voters and behaviour...?

I would say that they don't do the former... But definitely do the latter...

Without evidence to substantiate it, I couldn't say either way. It's sounds as if it could go both ways: the followers would go with the masses; the contrarians would go against the masses.

Thus, it would be a psychological issue as to the greater question of what determines ideology and opinion. Which personality traits make up an antifa, and which make up a profa? Other than in academia, is it any of our business?

But...do you have any studies that would conclusively show polls influence specific choices? I would like to see them.

Mmmm... Maybe somebody could do a poll on it...?

Although in your answer you are admitting the possibility that many could be influenced...


So kind of proving my point that they are bullshit and manipulative and should be banned...

Tommy Monk wrote:Although in your answer you are admitting the possibility that many could be influenced...

So kind of proving my point that they are bullshit and manipulative and should be banned...

There's two ways of looking at it: (1) either all knowledge is "bullshit and manipulative"; or (2) all attempts to politically persuade is "bullshit and manipulative".  Either way, we don't really have grounds to complain.

I think you don't like the possible duplicity of pollsters saying they are just information-gathering, when in fact the effect of polls might be to persuade.  First, I don't know that such is the case, as you have offered no evidence.

Second, so what?  I mean, advertisers do this all the time: Ivory soap is 99 and 44/100 percent pure.  WTF??  Fake truth is all the rage in media advertising everywhere.

But again, there's a big difference between saying something is possible, and saying something is conclusive.  I've seen no conclusive evidence that a) there is a causal connection between polls and voter choice; or b) that polling establishments are doing that in fact.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Some people are swayed by what they perceive as being promoted to them as the best/popular/most acceptable/right choice, and will subsequently more likely 'go with the flow' of that influence... to deny any influence of voter choice in this is akin to claiming that advertising has absolutely no effect on consumers either...


Also... Heavy biased polling towards one candidate could well have a counter productive effect on end result by making people think that this preferred candidate will win hands down anyway, so they don't really need to bother adding their small number to the tally in their favour, while conversely it could invigorate supporters of the other candidate who is repeatedly shown in polls to be the loser in end result, thus making many more of them actually get out and vote... And all of that could well end with a result that would have otherwise not happened without this influence on voters...


So... The question is... Are polls there to give an accurate insight and prediction on voting intentions?


Or are they there to influence and/or manipulate voters and behaviour...?


I would say that they don't do the former... But definitely do the latter...

So do you switch your vote to Labour every time you see them in the lead?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Some people are swayed by what they perceive as being promoted to them as the best/popular/most acceptable/right choice, and will subsequently more likely 'go with the flow' of that influence... to deny any influence of voter choice in this is akin to claiming that advertising has absolutely no effect on consumers either...


Also... Heavy biased polling towards one candidate could well have a counter productive effect on end result by making people think that this preferred candidate will win hands down anyway, so they don't really need to bother adding their small number to the tally in their favour, while conversely it could invigorate supporters of the other candidate who is repeatedly shown in polls to be the loser in end result, thus making many more of them actually get out and vote... And all of that could well end with a result that would have otherwise not happened without this influence on voters...


So... The question is... Are polls there to give an accurate insight and prediction on voting intentions?


Or are they there to influence and/or manipulate voters and behaviour...?


I would say that they don't do the former... But definitely do the latter...

So do you switch your vote to Labour every time you see them in the lead?

There is some level of bandwagon jumping from the less informed and less political. You, Tommy or I might not do it, but others will.

As a Libertarian I get told I'm wasting my vote because my candidates wont win. Lots of folks (too many) look at voting as a horse race where you try to match your vote to a winning horse.

Firstly... Polls showed that there would be a result for remain in the Brexit referendum... They were wrong... The polls also didn't predict a huge majority for Boris Johnson Tory govt it the last election and a wipe out for labour and they never predicted the wipeout that the lib Dems suffered a few years ago or their woeful result last election either... They showed a much closer result in election...


So they have been consistently wrong...


But if I saw a huge labour leed in polls then it would encourage me to go out and vote even more to try to prevent that... While it might also make labour voters think that their vote wasn't needed to secure a labour victory so might not bother to go round the polling station.

Tommy Monk wrote:Firstly... Polls showed that there would be a result for remain in the Brexit referendum... They were wrong... The polls also didn't predict a huge majority for Boris Johnson Tory govt it the last election and a wipe out for labour and they never predicted the wipeout that the lib Dems suffered a few years ago or their woeful result last election either... They showed a much closer result in election...

So they have been consistently wrong...

Two incidents (Brexit and BJ) do not prove, or even show a generalization...even if we accept the arguments you make in each instance.  You can't generalize from specifics.

Tommy Monk wrote:But if I saw a huge labour leed in polls then it would encourage me to go out and vote even more to try to prevent that... While it might also make labour voters think that their vote wasn't needed to secure a labour victory so might not bother to go round the polling station.

I think you just made my point for me.  If anything, seeing your opponent winning would not cause you to jump on the ‘bandwagon’, but would prompt you to go out and vote to counter your opponent’s lead.  The point being:

Original Quill wrote:Elections are competitive, but intuition tells us that they don't determine which way people vote, but that people must get out and vote.

As you see, I agree.

My evidence for polls being bullshit and wrong are the recent examples that have used the most recent and "best" up to date polling methods and extrapolation calculations... But were totally inacurate!


And it's not me agreeing with you... It's you agreeing with me...

The polls influence voter behaviour in many ways...!

So should be banned!

Tommy Monk wrote:My evidence for polls being bullshit and wrong are the recent examples that have used the most recent and "best" up to date polling methods and extrapolation calculations... But were totally inacurate!

So you (and you alone) say.  I really didn't question your evidence--perhaps I should have--but rather, I said that two specifics do not make a generalization.

Tommy Monk wrote:And it's not me agreeing with you... It's you agreeing with me...

I'm older than you, tom, and I've held the opinion longer.  You are agreeing with me.

Tommy Monk wrote:The polls influence voter behaviour in many ways...!

So should be banned!

By that logic, anything that influences one's behavior should be banned.  Advertising influences one's behavior.  Ban the damnable practice!!

Um...perhaps one question: by what authority do you ban a practice?  I thought Britain was a free country.  I hear the US is also a free country.  That means one has to have authority to ban anything.

I don't know about y'all, but we have a Constitution.  The US Constitution says the states have control of elections.  The Constitution also says, in the First Amendment, no state may deny freedom of speech.

Isn't a poll free speech?  It’s a statement of political prediction.  Isn't a poll, even if occasionally in error, subject to free speech rules?  Aren’t we all free to discuss politics, including predictions of outcomes of elections?  Some of us are right; some of us are wrong, eh?  Should we ban all political discussion, and go back to Kings and dictators for life?

So wow, polls are self-fulfilling prophecies - unless they're wrong about who wins. But if they're right about who wins, they made people vote that way.

So if Trump loses, the polls are to blame, and if he wins, the polls were wrong.

Simply bonkers.

Ben Reilly wrote:So wow, polls are self-fulfilling prophecies - unless they're wrong about who wins. But if they're right about who wins, they made people vote that way.

So if Trump loses, the polls are to blame, and if he wins, the polls were wrong.

Simply bonkers.

Polls can sway some folks. Enough to matter? Probably in a tight race. That's why some people post bullshit polls.

Let's face it. There are millions of idiots that use convoluted reasoning to decide their votes.

Tommy ain't wrong. I have no idea who is going to win, but Trump is outperforming the polls. Perhaps more than he did last time.

Ben Reilly wrote:Trump needs 11 million more votes than he got last time. Ain't happening.

He might. Hes probably going to lose, but he got a lot more votes.

He got a million more votes in Texas alone. I assumed most of the new voters were going to Biden. It appears each guy got a million more votes in Texas than in 2016.

Ben Reilly wrote:I'm more interested in what will happen with the transfer of power at this point. Don't forget that Trump has surrounded himself with hard-core loyalists. I'm hoping it will turn out to be a political Y2K, but there could be a mess, not to mention violence in the streets.

Looks like I was right about the violence, sadly.

Yes you were. And there may be still more...lookout.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:I'm more interested in what will happen with the transfer of power at this point. Don't forget that Trump has surrounded himself with hard-core loyalists. I'm hoping it will turn out to be a political Y2K, but there could be a mess, not to mention violence in the streets.

Looks like I was right about the violence, sadly.

You were about 92% correct.

The violence was not in the streets but at the seat of power.

Say what you want about these clowns, they went after power and left the powerless alone.

Original Quill wrote:Yes you were.  

And there may be still more...lookout.

Yes quite possibly! The genie's out. (the kraken too, lol.   )
Michael Moore says there are strong links between far right supremacists  and many members of the police/army.
IE some of the stuff we see are inside jobs.
Figures, really.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:I'm more interested in what will happen with the transfer of power at this point. Don't forget that Trump has surrounded himself with hard-core loyalists. I'm hoping it will turn out to be a political Y2K, but there could be a mess, not to mention violence in the streets.

Looks like I was right about the violence, sadly.

In the week leading up to the riot, it was openly advertised. Posters, everything.
Well organised. Rioters flew in by the planeload.
The first 2 or 3 sentences of the final video I posted on my youtube thread, tells you everything you need to know.

Heading out. Take care folks, stay safe.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Looks like I was right about the violence, sadly.

You were about 92% correct.  

The violence was not in the streets but at the seat of power.  

Say what you want about these clowns, they went after power and left the powerless alone.  

All you are saying is that the violence was more strategic.  The insurrectionists were well-informed as to how, and to whom violence should be directed..."not in the streets but at the seat of power."  That reveals that there were forces behind the insurrection that distinguish it from a casual demonstration.

This was an action that is on the level of Pearl Harbor, except it was from within.  But for the failure of the insurrection, we can expect that there would have been murder of duly elected people, as well as the Constitution itself, in the streets.  The terrorists had guns, ties, and they had even constructed a gallows on the lawn of the Capital.  They were stating their intentions: "Hang Pence!" as well as other officials.

These people should receive life sentences, if not the same sentence that was given the Rosenbergs.  There can be no greater crime than that of autocrats, seeking to overturn a constitutional democracy.

JulesV wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Yes you were.  

And there may be still more...lookout.

Yes quite possibly! The genie's out. (the kraken too, lol.   )
Michael Moore says there are strong links between far right supremacists  and many members of the police/army.
IE some of the stuff we see are inside jobs.
Figures, really.

Michael Moore is a fraud.

A really fat one. There are plenty of better sources.

Maddog wrote:

JulesV wrote:
Yes quite possibly! The genie's out. (the kraken too, lol.   )
Michael Moore says there are strong links between far right supremacists  and many members of the police/army.
IE some of the stuff we see are inside jobs.
Figures, really.

Michael Moore is a fraud.  

A really fat one.  There are plenty of better sources.  

No I will definitely stick with Moore. We followed him for decades, read his books, attended all his movie premieres.
As for his fraud & fat frame? We forgive him.  Seen worse!

JulesV wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Michael Moore is a fraud.  

A really fat one.  There are plenty of better sources.  

No I will definitely stick with Moore. We followed him for decades, read his books, attended all his movie premieres.
As for his fraud & fat frame? We forgive him.  Seen worse!

There are people that follow David Icke too.

He's just a skinnier purple fraud.

Original Quill wrote:Yes you were.  

And there may be still more...lookout.

What a disgrace that Donald has expressed no remorse for causing the deaths of two police officers when he sent his henchmen to riot at capitol. I haven't seen him pay any tribute to them and in fact  he was reportedly angry that pressure was put on him to issue a statement telling the rioting mob to calm down. He also had to be persuaded to fly the flag at half mast in honour of the two men.

Do blue lives matter .... to him? - nope, not even when he is the direct cause of their deaths. Shameful!

JulesV wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Yes you were.  

And there may be still more...lookout.

What a disgrace that Donald has expressed no remorse for causing the deaths of two police officers when he sent his henchmen to riot at capitol. I haven't seen him pay any tribute to them and in fact  he was reportedly angry that pressure was put on him to issue a statement telling the rioting mob to calm down. He also had to be persuaded to fly the flag at half mast in honour of the two men.

Do blue lives matter .... to him? - nope, not even when he is the direct cause of their deaths. Shameful!

One cop killed himself 3 days later. Hard to tie that one to the orange idiot.

JulesV wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Yes you were.

And there may be still more...lookout.

What a disgrace that Donald has expressed no remorse for causing the deaths of two police officers when he sent his henchmen to riot at capitol. I haven't seen him pay any tribute to them and in fact he was reportedly angry that pressure was put on him to issue a statement telling the rioting mob to calm down. He also had to be persuaded to fly the flag at half mast in honour of the two men.

Do blue lives matter .... to him? - nope, not even when he is the direct cause of their deaths. Shameful!

Donald has no loyalty, except to himself, his ass, and the line he can draw around it.

His niece, Mary Trump, PhD, a clinical psychologist, has explained this in family terms: she notes that Donald received from his father the ethos to win, even to win by cheating, which is to say that external rules and people mean nothing. See, Trump, Mary, Too Much and Never Enough (2020). It is, in essence, a pure form of narcissist hedonism. Other people mean nothing, and external standards have no force with him.

The best example is in his game of golf, in which he cheats incessantly. What is the point? No point. It's pure selfism.

Maddog wrote:

JulesV wrote:

What a disgrace that Donald has expressed no remorse for causing the deaths of two police officers when he sent his henchmen to riot at capitol. I haven't seen him pay any tribute to them and in fact  he was reportedly angry that pressure was put on him to issue a statement telling the rioting mob to calm down. He also had to be persuaded to fly the flag at half mast in honour of the two men.

Do blue lives matter .... to him? - nope, not even when he is the direct cause of their deaths. Shameful!

One cop killed himself 3 days later.

Hard to tie that one to the orange idiot.

Two violent cop deaths resulted from this terrorist atrocity.
One was beaten to death.
The other one blew his own brains out with his gun, such was the extent of the psychological trauma he suffered.

JulesV wrote:

Maddog wrote:

One cop killed himself 3 days later.

Hard to tie that one to the orange idiot.

Two violent cop deaths resulted from this terrorist atrocity.
One was beaten to death.
The other one blew his own brains out with his gun, such was the extent of the psychological trauma he suffered.

No one knows why he blew his brains out.

Or if you do, please post where you read that.

Hell, I haven't even seen how he killed himself.

Maddog wrote:

JulesV wrote:
Two violent cop deaths resulted from this terrorist atrocity.
One was beaten to death.
The other one blew his own brains out with his gun, such was the extent of the psychological trauma he suffered.

No one knows why he blew his brains out.

Or if you do, please post where you read that.

Hell, I haven't even seen how he killed himself.

The people trapped for hours in that building with that wild mob, will need intensive counselling - I predicted this straightaway and I said so, long before that cop suicided.

And there might be more suicides to follow, sadly. That's another prediction from me.  


Btw, strange that you're so reluctant to accept the obvious connection between this suicide and the terrorist capitol incident just THREE days earlier.  The unfortunate firemen who got sick -physically or mentally decades after the 9/11 attacks, were compensated based on the attack,  no quibbling.

JulesV wrote:

Maddog wrote:

No one knows why he blew his brains out.

Or if you do, please post where you read that.

Hell, I haven't even seen how he killed himself.

The people trapped for hours in that building with that wild mob, will need intensive counselling - I predicted this straightaway and I said so, long before that cop suicided.

And there might be more suicides to follow, sadly. That's another prediction from me.  


Btw, strange that you're so reluctant to accept the obvious connection between this suicide and the terrorist capitol incident just THREE days earlier.  The unfortunate firemen who got sick -physically or mentally decades after the 9/11 attacks, were compensated based on the attack,  no quibbling.

I'll accept a reason for his suicide when one is given. Anything else is just speculation.

And Jules, I'll gladly read a link that you post that provides information as to why he killed himself, assuming it's ever revealed.

Maddog wrote:And Jules, I'll gladly read a link that you post that provides information as to why he killed himself, assuming it's ever revealed.  

Rock solid evidence is hard to produce, in matters like this, Maddog. Heck even the coroner hedges his bets when announcing verdicts and openly admits that there are no certainties  - and goes instead with the sheer "weight of evidence."

So here we are - you say his suicide is NOT related to the terrorist attack.
I say it is related.
What now, hon?

JulesV wrote:

Maddog wrote:And Jules, I'll gladly read a link that you post that provides information as to why he killed himself, assuming it's ever revealed.  

Rock solid evidence is hard to produce, in matters like this, Maddog. Heck even the coroner hedges his bets when announcing verdicts and openly admits that there are no certainties  - and goes instead with the sheer "weight of evidence."

So here we are - you say his suicide is NOT related to the terrorist attack.
I say it is related.
What now, hon?

We say we don't know why (or even how) he killed himself as opposed to speculating.

Maybe someone had pictures of him fucking a goat?