Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - TheDeamon

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 87
1
General Comments / Re: Voting mechanisms
« on: October 22, 2020, 07:21:38 PM »
Trump's Army has kicked off their voter intimidation program:

Quote
The Sheriff [Bob Gualtieri] told me the persons that were dressed in these security uniforms had indicated to sheriff’s deputies that they belonged to a licensed security company and they indicated—and this has not been confirmed yet—that they were hired by the Trump campaign,” said Marcus in a video interview with 8 On Your Side’s Chip Osowski Wednesday night.

There is almost no chance that these men were actually hired by the Trump campaign, and the Trump campaign has denied they were involved. Of course, this was completely expected to happen, and people warned about it happening, after Trump encouraged people to do just this on numerous occasions.

And wouldn't it be ironic if they either never find who hired them, or they were connected to left-wing groups?

edit: and I guess its a good thing that information likely won't come to light until after the election.

2
I think what you have to remember, is that both legal and illegal aliens, as well as former felons are unable to vote. They still count for representation. Part of that is allocation of funds. If your district has thousands of people in the country on Visas, or have permanent resident cards, they are still driving on the roads, their kids are still going to public schools, and still utilize local health care. Illegal immigrants are still having impact on that infrastructure also. Leave it short, and you don't have adequate funds, and that impacts all the citizens living in that area also. With respect to representation, yes I think resident aliens with documentation do deserve a voice in Washington even if they are not citizens. I can't make an argument that illegals deserve impact on legislation, but I can't separate it from all the other uses of the census data.

At what point did anyone in here suggest we not allocate funding for public services in an area based on population?

I know I was very careful to make clear my issue was with the apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives. "their state of residence" still has 2 senators like everybody else does. They still have a Representative that covers their neighborhood, granted in a properly apportioned House of Representatives where only citizens or people "on a citizen track" are the ones to "get the full count" for apportionment they'll be one of a lot more people making requests. But "those are the breaks" when you decide you can't be bothered to play by the rules.

3
Quote
You're just upset because things tilted in the Republicans favor the last time district borders were drawn in numerous states.

Deamon, enough with this mealy-mouthed horsesh*t.  >:(

Either defend gerrymandering and tell us how it is good and just and right to configure districts to minimize the influence of your opposition, or condemn gerrymandering as an un-American practice that disenfranchises voters and undermines democracy, like the Democrats have been arguing for the past few years.  But don't give us this, "well, your side does it too, so we've justified in doing it ourselves" crap.

It's anything but "unAmerican" as it didn't exist until we developed it, and we've been doing it since about 1812. So gerrymandering is as American as Apple Pie.

That doesn't necessarily make it a good thing, but it is something we've had going on for over 200 years now, and it hasn't destroyed our democracy yet. As such, I don't view it as an existential crises.

It's detestable, and it is creating some political effects that are very undesirable, but the adjectives being used in association with it really need some work.

Quote
Republicans and Conservatives love to say that they have integrity, morality, honesty and responsibility (unlike the "other guys").  Well, you show none of those things when you excuse your moral failings on the "other guys."  You just show you are lazy, irresponsible children who want to place the blame on anyone but themselves, just like your President.

The "other thing" you're ignoring as you speak out of both side of your mouth on this is that Gerrymandering is not always black and white.

Some districts were gerrymandered explicitly to create an "ethnic" district for representation purposes, something SCotUS has even upheld IIRC. I think that's actually something that works counter to integration, but it is what it is...

There also are the instances(like in Utah's last round of redistricting) where the Democrats were the ones that requested the boundaries of certain districts be drawn a certain way so that rather than having 2 or 3 competitive districts for both parties, the Democrats could have 1 "Safe district" in Utah.

So was that compromise (which served the partisan interests of both parties in that case) wrong in your book or is it acceptable?

But I can appreciate the rage at my cheeky and sarcastic initial response to the matter.

4
So answer the question. What media outlet that can comment on things has access to the hard drive or a copy of it? That was your claim, the entire news media had the hard drive and was just waiting on their legal teams for how to write stories about it. Last time I looked last night, I couldn't find a single new outlet outside of the NYP who had access to the files.

Fox News has independently verified some of the emails that have been released.

Does Fox News have a copy of the hard drive?

They don't need the hard drive to independently verify the material that has been released, they just have to find someone else who received the relevant e-mail that is willing to validate it.

To be clear I was responding to the claim wm made that all media outlets had a copy of the hard drive and were waiting around for other reasons to publish it. If the drive is so damning why not mail a copy to every news room in America?

And if you look at my first response in that chain(that should be pruned, but the lazy I'm leaving intact), I specifically said they'd validated some of the emails. I was not attempting to address the rest of it.

As to not cloning the HD multiple times and handing them out like candy?

It might have something to do with the more recent report of there being some pornographic material on the Hard Drive which probably is not legal in its nature.

5
TheDeamon:
Quote
So. About California and a few other Democratic strongholds with large populations of illegal immigrants that they want to have counted towards their population for the purpose of allocating seats in the House of Representatives even though those persons are unable to vote?

The founding fathers were perfectly fine with people who didn't even count as people being counted for the population.  Maybe bring back the old 3/5 rule?
Originalism and Textualism For The Win!

Plus, we will finally get an accurate count of all the illegals

I'd be more inclined to treat it as this:

Quote
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Although obviously illegal immigrants aren't Indians so we'd need to amend things all the same.

But "three fifths of all other persons" could be considered relevant to this specific situation as well.

In any case, it does seem that the founding fathers did have a framework where people not part of the representative system ("Indians not taxed" and the slaves getting a 3/5ths count) didn't get to be fully attributed to the states in which they happened to live for the purpose of representation apportionments.

6
In all 10 cases, those legislatures are held by Republicans.  You can "what about" all day long, but it doesn't change the fact that Republicans are currently the party of disenfranchising voters for the purposes of getting themselves elected.

So. About California and a few other Democratic strongholds with large populations of illegal immigrants that they want to have counted towards their population for the purpose of allocating seats in the House of Representatives even though those persons are unable to vote?

How does that impact voter enfranchisement in the rest of the country? By some estimates California is up anywhere from 2 to 3 house seats(and electoral votes) at present due to that. Who knows what that'll look like after the current enumeration concludes?

We're disenfranchising US Citizens in other states because Illegal immigrants foreign nationals need their voice to be heard in the United States Congress? Even though they can't vote anyway so there is no legal mechanism for that to happen in the first place?

7
General Comments / Re: Who will be next to speak out about Trump?
« on: October 20, 2020, 09:32:23 PM »
Holding allies accountable to agreements they made previously is not "blowing up international treaties" that's pointing out the other side is not holding up their side of the deal.

The WHO is a quagmire, most of the UN in general is a quagmire, but its a reflection of the world we live in where most countries are hopelessly corrupt, self-serving, and barely even pretending to care about democratic systems.

8
General Comments / Re: Who will be next to speak out about Trump?
« on: October 20, 2020, 07:31:25 PM »
He's actually been doing a fairly decent job internationally.

As to the domestic side of things? It isn't so much that he doesn't want alliances with the Dems, it's that the Dems have been very clear they don't want to give Trump any wins to brag about unless they're able to burry it with other things in the news cycle.

9
Yes, laws put in place by - wait for it - Republicans.

Oh, and for a little context: During the 2018 Pennsylvania House of Representatives election, the Democrats won 55% of the vote, to the Republicans 44%.  So you would think that it must be the Dems' fault, right?  Except that garnering 55% of the votes was only enough to win 46% of the seats - whereas the Republicans 44% of the vote translated into 54% of the seats.

And the Republicans are using those state seats to disenfranchise voters.  Of course it's harder to do when you are that far in the minority, but they are giving it the old college try.

That can be a bit disingenuous too, you realize? votes cast != number of voters in a district. All you're arguing in this case is that the Democratic Districts had higher turnout than the Republican one. There are a number of ways that can be explained away. And complaining about Republicans gerrymandering for political purposes is rich given Maryland's former Democratic Governor admitted under oath to doing exactly that in the past, and the courts upheld it as a valid practice. You're just upset because things tilted in the Republicans favor the last time district borders were drawn in numerous states.

10
Trump apparently shocked - shocked I say - that Pennsylvania will count actual votes:

Quote
We got a ruling yesterday where they can count ballots after the election's over, what kind of a thing— so what does that mean, we're going to wait until after Nov. 3 and start announcing states?

In a state where Republicans blocked votes from being processed before election day, then tried to block votes from being counted after election day, you have to wonder... why? Why do they not want votes counted?

I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.

They don't want votes counted days before polls close so those tallies cannot be leaked so as to influence turnout on election day.

The votes they're trying to block from being counted after election day are ballots received after polls close. I'd be fine with ballots post marked on election day, but there is always the guy who drops his ballot in the right collection box at 10PM on election night(2 hours after polls closed and results are being shared) and can still get it postmarked before midnight.

11
So answer the question. What media outlet that can comment on things has access to the hard drive or a copy of it? That was your claim, the entire news media had the hard drive and was just waiting on their legal teams for how to write stories about it. Last time I looked last night, I couldn't find a single new outlet outside of the NYP who had access to the files.

Fox News has independently verified some of the emails that have been released.

Does Fox News have a copy of the hard drive?

They don't need the hard drive to independently verify the material that has been released, they just have to find someone else who received the relevant e-mail that is willing to validate it.

12
So answer the question. What media outlet that can comment on things has access to the hard drive or a copy of it? That was your claim, the entire news media had the hard drive and was just waiting on their legal teams for how to write stories about it. Last time I looked last night, I couldn't find a single new outlet outside of the NYP who had access to the files.

Fox News has independently verified some of the emails that have been released.

13
General Comments / Re: How to save the country
« on: October 20, 2020, 03:48:49 PM »
My concern in the scenario where the Democrats take the House, Senate, and White House, they will instigate a Civil War before the 2022 election as they make moves with their "electoral mandate" which moves red states into a mode of defiance where the Democrats make the fighting turn hot.

Of course, this ignores AntiFa's agitators that are signaling they have intention to stop if Biden wins election, in which case they may force "the rebellion" from the other side when the Democrats try to use the levers of Federal Power to stop Red States/Red Counties from doing anything to stop rioters on their own turf.

14
https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

Quote
Date   Republicans   Independents   Democrats
2020 Sep 14-28:   28   42   27
2018 Nov 1-11:    28   39   31
2016 Nov 1-6:      27   36   31

If you're sampling based on 2018 or 2016 voter numbers, it looks like you could be looking at a +4% sampling bias in favor of Democrats.

Of course, I guess there also is this(looks like they have a rounding error in the most recent poll:
Quote
Asked of independents) As of today, do you lean more to the Democratic Party or the Republican Party?

Date     Republicans/Republican leaners   Democrats/Democratic leaners
2020 Sep 14-28:   44   47
2018 Nov 1-11:    43   46
2016 Nov 1-6:     43   46

15
General Comments / Re: Who will be next to speak out about Trump?
« on: October 19, 2020, 10:41:19 PM »
The Corporate GOP was the biggest thing holding the Republican party back from doing anything previously, now it's Trump's mouth. But if they're given a chance, I have no doubt the Corporatists will find ways to screw things up further, considering they're still in Washington for the most part.

16
...So if it doesn't happen, and Biden isn't replaced by anyone in the presidential elections, you'll admit you were very very wrong?

Probably not. They need a workable strategy to maintain power, and I'm not sure they can find it by changing out Biden before the election. What that means is a no-win situation for them, and the odds that they will try to finesse the charges against Biden to get past the election, then fix things after the fact.

They're legally constrained, the constitutional process once paired with the statutory law, they don't have any strong options for replacing Biden until 12:01PM on January 20th, 2021 should he win the election.

In theory some options could open immediately after the ratify the election results in Congress, but until they ratify Biden as President and Harris as the VP so the Electoral College results are no longer relevant tot he selection process, they can't do much without creating more Constitutional headaches.


17
I'll still stand by on I'm not expecting anything. I suspect there is a "shy voter" effect in play making the polls very unreliable and that people are misleading the pollsters in significant numbers.

I would be shocked if Trump wins the popular vote, but unsurprised if he wins the Electoral College.

I would also be unsurprised to see Biden win the Electoral College, because as I said, I don't think the polls are reliable this year for a list of reasons which only has shy voters as the top of the list. (Sampling method, and other factors play in as well)

Although I might stock up on popcorn, as stuff I'm hearing indicates we can expect left-wing riots after the November election regardless of if Trump wins or not, and that some of those riots will continue even after Trump leaves office should he lose. January is going to be amusing to say the least.

18
Another oddity to point at:

Trump's favorability rating is about 6 points higher today than it was at this time 4 years ago. Don't confuse approval with favorability, they're different markers.

And I guess there was another poll where 47% of those polled thought their neighbors were Trump voters, compared to 36% for Biden.... That's quite the wild swing from Biden being up by 11 points in the national polls.

Of course, for early voting the registered Democrats seem to be turning up, and the Republicans seem to be strangely absent in many states(even against historical numbers), so there is another path to potential victory for Biden as that could point some kind of weird enthusiasm issue for Trump.

19
Meanwhile there is reporting that the Biden Campaign has an internal memo saying Trump is "neck and neck" in several key states. (NY Post)

So something very weird is going on here.

20
General Comments / Re: Who will be next to speak out about Trump?
« on: October 18, 2020, 10:44:31 AM »
You do realize that Governor Whitman in Michigan has gone full-on Andrew Jackson at this stage? "The Court has had it's ruling, now they can try to enforce it."

I know Jackson was a Democrat and all, but he isn't exactly one most people want to see get emulated.

21
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: October 18, 2020, 10:40:30 AM »
Biggest thing Taiwan did was mandate a quarantine, rather than suggest one, for anyone entering their country when this all started. Really, that is the only sane way to have approached the situation, except the United States evidently doesn't have laws on the books to enable us to do that in most cases of (routine) travel.

22
General Comments / Re: How to save the country
« on: October 18, 2020, 12:45:08 AM »
You've been told before that the boogaloo boys span both sides of the spectrum.
The Boogaloo movement is primarily far right, with roots in white supremacy, and is loosely organized, as you've been told before :)

Sure, there have been some groups claiming to be both Boogaloo and who decry racism, but those are simply atypical offshoots.  But yes, there are definitely different flavours of Boogaloo.

The Boogaloo movement is primarily anti-authoritarian aka Libertarian. Where even most examples of the political axis that aren't 3 dimensional have them on their own axis entirely relative to Democrats and Republicans. (It just happens that most Libertarians also share another different axis with a great many Republicans and Conservatives)

Quote
I note you didn't address how that Confederate flag in Michigan could be considered in any way BLM-supportive, though - that particular piece of evidence strongly suggests these particular Boogaloo tools do hold an anti-BLM position, but maybe you disagree that flying a confederate flag in Michigan suggests anti-black tendencies.

I honestly haven't been bothered to /care about what the crazies in Michigan are up to and I've been it second/third hand, so I simply don't know enough about the specifics of that group to explain what could be going on with the confederate flag. Except while in the Military I has known people in the past who loved their confederate flags, and weren't racist at all near as I could tell(but they also were from the South). So jumping to racist upon seeing someone using that flag isn't something I'm inclined to do because experience has shown me differently.

23
FiveThirtyEight has Biden up by 8 in Michigan.  I think that's been pretty static for a while, but there hasn't been a lot of quality state level polls yet.

It was 11 earlier today.

24
So Michigan early voting is +6 Democrat against Republicans, even though early voting/mail in is supposed to strongly favor the Dems and current polling is suggesting it should be Biden +11?

Nate Silver is starting to make noises that would tend to suggest he's about to start debunking the idea of a "red mirage" saving Biden should Trump look like the winner on the 3rd. Early returns are D+31, but votes remaining to be cast are only D+17. So once the Trump voters turn up to vote in person, those mail-in votes yet to be counted may actually favor Trump.

25
General Comments / Re: How to save the country
« on: October 17, 2020, 01:20:36 PM »
You've been told before that the boogaloo boys span both sides of the spectrum.

People don't neatly line up in tidy little compartments like many would like them to.

26
General Comments / Re: How to save the country
« on: October 17, 2020, 12:35:06 PM »
Talk of civil war comes from the Democrats. have you not heard the AntiFa military wing of the Democrat Party? The GOP never told people to corner their adversary in restaurants with their families and intimidate them and make their lives miserable. That is entirely on your side. All the evil comes from the Left - and they only project it onto the GOP and Trump.

Who were those guys arrested for plotting to kidnap and execute democratic governors?

BLM supporters and anarchists among a few other things.

27
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: October 16, 2020, 10:45:14 AM »
Also disappointing. Starting to hear reports of people contracting covid twice

Which means "booster shots" for any potential vaccine at least twice a year as comparatively few people were infected 6+ months ago, and if infection with the virus itself cannot protect that long, a vaccine is going to be extremely hard pressed to do better.

Of course, the trade-off on the "re-infection" reports, which aren't exactly new(having been around for months as well), is are we truly looking at a re-infection, or a resurgence of the initial infection?

28
General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: October 15, 2020, 03:38:13 PM »
From the peak of the 12-year sunspot cycle to the trough, total solar irradiance varies by less than 0.1%.  That's from peak to trough.  The variance between cycles is far less than 0.1%.  The effects of changes in solar irradiance are completely dwarfed by other variables.

It isn't just irradiance though, it is the intensity of the solar wind, cosmic rays(strong sunspot cycles shield us from Cosmic Rays), and the weird link between the solar cycle/solar wind and the depth of our atmosphere. high sunspot activity means thicker(deeper) atmosphere and more stable jet stream, low sunspot activity thinner(more shallow) atmosphere and a jet stream which wanders more, and that's something that is more immediately noticeable.

29
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: October 14, 2020, 03:35:25 PM »
Study estimates that 75,000 more people died during the spring and summer in the USA as a result of COVID-19 than previously reported.

Taking into consideration the previously posited causes such as delayed care as well as co-morbidities like Alzheimers, diabetes and heart disease , there was an excess of 75,000 deaths over that period.  That's an additional 50% over official estimates.

First responders are certainly noticing an increase of callouts they're getting because people are avoiding seeking medical treatment for things because of their fear getting covid during the doctor's visit. Which means they end up with much worse medical conditions that require an ambulance ride rather than driving themselves to the doctor.

But that also makes related deaths harder to quanitfy. Fear of covid certainly was a decisive contributor to their outcome, but Covid19 itself had nothing to do with their deaths.

30
General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: October 14, 2020, 02:14:56 PM »
OK.  How much did the lack of sun spots affect our global climate.  How much did their lack add to the heating from CO2, or conversely, how much did it temporarily alleviate the temperature increase from CO2?  What do your models indicate?

And what about the 12 years before the reduction of sunspots?  Was there no effect then?  How about the 12 years before that?  And the 12 years before that?  And the 12 years before that? Etc.

Global temperatures have been climbing for quite a while now.  Far longer than this reduction in sunspots.

The Solar Cycles we've been seeing since the 1970's have been among some of the most active ones since records started being made roughly 300 years ago. IIRC, the most recently concluded one was still slightly "above average" against the historical record(but some of that could be from our enhanced ability to detect sunspots/solar flares, including being able to see "behind the sun" relative to Earth).

If the theory about the very active solar cycles we've just gone through holds valid, we're likely still bleeding off "excess heat" accumulated from those cycles and it could take awhile for any real cooling effect to be detected. Depending on how active solar cycle 25 is against the historical sunspot cycles, we'll see if we continue to warm or start to cool. If SC is appreciably below the historical average and we're still warming in 10 years time, the Solar Cycle theory is effectively busted. But if it is merely "average" or more active than that, then it continues to be disputed until we're on the tail end of a below-average solar cycle.

Remember, the energy requirements for maintaining a temperature are lower than the requirements for changing a temperature assuming all other variables remain the same.

31
General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: October 14, 2020, 02:05:36 PM »
2 percent change in cloud cover. I won't dig further into the report to see if a 2% change is actually statistically significant from their data, for now assume that it is. 2% change in cloud cover is unlikely to have a strong impact on climate. Clouds kind of wash out in the climate warming/cooling scheme. They reflect heat during the day and trap it at night. So a 2% change in cloud cover is unlikely to have a strong impact on global climate.

Depends on the clouds?

Where there are clouds, there are precipitation events. Where there are precipitation events you have water from the colder upper atmosphere moving down to the planets surface. You also additional convection going on moving heat from the lower atmosphere into higher levels of it before once again returning that now cooler moisture back to the surface.

Or are you forgetting that summer thunderstorms, especially the strong ones, are known to cool the area they're in by upwards of 30 degrees(F) when they move through? Yes you can see that with coldfronts too, but a supercell thunderstorm doesn't necessarily need a cold front.

Even the more generic thunderstorms still typically produce 10 degrees(F) worth of cooling when they pass through. And the number of those events is going to be a function of how much cloud cover there is and the mechanism behind their formation.

32
General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: October 14, 2020, 01:58:09 PM »
...So what makes you believe clouds will compensate for increased heat trapped by CO2?  Where is your data?  Where are your models?

Or is it just a WAG? ;)

In 2008, Scientists noted the absence of sun spots: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080609124551.htm

Now it is 2020 and the sun spots have been gone all this time.

You may want to check this post: http://ai-jane.org/thread-15075-post-281659.html#pid281659

Uh what?

2008 was during a transition between sunspot cycles. There was plenty of sunspot activity between 2008 and 2019. It was still one of the more active cycles seen since the start of the 20th century which were in and of themselves more active than anything recorded previously.

Now what's been seen since 2019 is a bit unusual, but to try to claim there were no sunspots, or unusually low sunspot activity between 2008 and now is so far the reality of things you really need to look at where you're getting information from.

33
General Comments / Re: Why so cagey?
« on: October 14, 2020, 01:54:55 PM »
What was more concerning was her giving talks at an organization that promoted making homo-sexuality illegal. She said she didn't know the Christian lawyers group she was speaking to supported that position. I'm was shocked when the senator questioning her about it didn't push the issue a little further. Or at least asked the follow up, "Do you think the constitution allows for passing laws that make homosexuality or homosexual acts illegal?"

Technically it does, it's called a constitutional amendment as the simplest means.

And as the constitution itself is fairly silent on the matter, unless you're going to try to contort the equal protections clause, it would be as simple as congress inactivating a number of existing federal statutes.

34
General Comments / Re: Why so cagey?
« on: October 14, 2020, 01:51:27 PM »
I will mention as a brief aside that the term 'orientation' seems to be even more insulting than 'preference' in this case, because it is in fact the case that a person can prefer certain things, and that this preference can be fluid. For example I've known people who predominantly like guys (aka 'gay') but sometimes go with girls for a change of pace. The LGBTQ community used to (or maybe still does) have a serious problem with people who cannot be defined by some simple label (remember when "label jars not people" was a axiom of an entire culture?). Bisexual people had problems in the gay community because they hated 'traitors' who were not gay full stop but who didn't fit that mold. Now there are more letters, but even so the difficulty of requiring a simple label for oneself does away with what is really an exercise in liberty and choice: I will go with whom I please, when I please, and not need to follow some rule. If that is not an exercise in preference then I don't know what is. Calling that a "slur" is an abomination against both language and decency. It actually scares me, and I physically recoiled when I read about this.

Which isn't to mention that any word or phrase which identifies a group, given sufficient time and inclination from "the right people" will be become a slur when used by those same people. In that context "sexual orientation" already would be a slur when used by the people that the Senator alluded to. The only thing which makes it "different" right now is "the alphabet community" and their auxiliaries haven't yet changed their language again to use something else in order to try to out the people who aren't marching in lockstep with them. (Which will inevitably catch a great many other people in the process--"the left" already has phrasing problems because of this)

35
I've seen the full interview with the whistle blower several times now, and listened to the facts he reported, and his allegation of sources, tapes, videos, and documents, and the official meetings he was in. Far more credible detail than what Schiff's whistleblower had, and was never challenged. The Woke generation is supposed to believe with no proof, yet he comes with proof and the MSM is crickets.

Waaaay too many moving parts for that to work and not leak like the Titanic after hitting the iceberg.

One guy isn't enough evidence, by a long shot.

36
Quote
I'm highly dubious of the 1.5 million dead claim on the "let it run" scenario at this stage. Too many instances of "community spread" where the person who spread it was never able to be identified, which says there are a legion of Covid19 cases out there which were never "confirmed cases" to work against that 2% mortality rate number, although that number is still slowly ticking downward as the current testing regime slowly whittles away on the initial 110 thousand deaths which happened in the first 2 million confirmed cases, as opposed to the 110 thousand deaths that have happened during the subsequent 5.7 million confirmed cases (yes, I know that still works out to just under 2%), but we're still having plenty of instances of the asymptomatic spreader going on, so the cohort of the Covid19 infected seems to be far larger than what the testing is finding even now.

The first number I found for Covid-19 death rate is around 0.6 %, which is much less than 2%.  However, that still means that if 80% of our 331 million people have to get infected, we can expect a bit over 1.5 million dead.

That would be about what we lose each year to the top 4 leading causes of death--heart disease, cancer, accidents and chronic lower respiratory disease--combined.

That would be more than the total number of American soldiers who have died in our wars.  All of our wars.

Yes, a vaccine would help get immunity without the large number of deaths.  But you have to keep the number of infections down until a vaccine is found, manufactured and distributed.  Which means to continue what we're doing.

First issue: While the war dead number is a stark thing to place it in comparison to, you also need to keep those mortality numbers in the perspective of the populations of the time.

1790 census, US Population: 3,893,635. So 25,000 dead would be about 0.6% of the population, adding in the wounded would get you to 1.2%

The war of 1812 and Mexican-American wars had fewer casualties than the revolution, and a much larger population.

1860 census, US Population: 31,443,321
1870 census, US Population: 38,558,371
An estimated 655,000 dead for both sides of the Civil War. 2% of the population in 1860, or just under 1.7% of the 1870 population post-war. There were an additional 475,907 wounded troops between both sides. for nearly 3.6% of the 1860 population being physically affected by the combat during the Civil War.

For our modern population, that would be 6.6 million people dead, and an additional 5.28 million wounded. And that's a scenario where most those dead or wounded were able bodied and healthy men in the prime of their life prior to the event in question. Unlike Covid19 where most of the deaths are happening to people whose health wasn't great to start with, and is disproportionately impacting the elderly. Yes it is killing people "in the prime of the life" who were otherwise healthy, but they're statistical outliers... Kind of like how many Democratic politicians like to hand-wave about women who defend themselves from rapists through the use of a fire-arm. "There are always going to be exceptions"

World War 1 saw 116,516 men killed, and an additional 204,002 wounded, but by 1920 we reached a population of 106.5 million so that's a roughly 0.1% killed, and an additional 0.2% wounded.

World War 2 saw 405,399 men killed, and an additional 670,846 wounded, but in 1940 we had reach a population of 132.1 million, or about 0.3% of the population killed and an additional 0.5% wounded.
 
It should also be noted that the Spanish Flu outbreak in the United States is also believed to have been more deadly to Americans than World War 1, and possibly even World War 2:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu#Around_the_globe
Quote
In the U.S., about 28% of the population of 105 million became infected, and 500,000 to 850,000 died (0.48 to 0.81 percent of the population)

So even though we have more than 3 times the population as we did back then, we're not even close to the total number of deaths experienced with the Spanish Flu, and we've been dealing with Covid19 for longer than they had to deal with the Spanish Flu. And incidentally, Americans(and other nations) came through that on the heels of a World War which had already killed or disabled a large number of their young men. And the death rate being reported by the Wiki also seems to be in the same exact range as Covid19 at present, which strongly indicates we do have a historical and reasonably contemporary analog we can compare against in that case.
 
Quote
Quote
If all of the trials fail, we're probably going to have to move into a "suck it up" mode anyway, we're simply not going to be able to lock things down sufficiently to properly eradicate Covid19 from our general population at this stage and the economic toll(with result impacts on mental health) is already getting to be plenty bad in its own right.

While the impact on mental health from economic hardship is not insignificant, I would ask you a simple question:  which of these would have the greater impact on your mental health?  Finding out your father lost his job and means of livelihood, or finding out your father died?  Losing your job and means of livelihood, or dying?  Which would you prefer for your father or yourself?  Which would you prefer for your family?  Which is worse?

What about the people who have fathers, husbands, or children kill themselves as a consequence of the mental health fallouts from the loss of their jobs and livelihoods? Or the people who are now finding themselves victims of domestic abuse because their significant other is coming apart mentally because their life has been destroyed by the Coid19 shutdowns? It might not kill them, but it's going to significantly damage their lives in a number of other ways. Plenty of statistics out there to back up the inconvenient fact that both domestic abuse and suicide increases as economic conditions worsen for people...

Quote
Quote
Older Generations had to contend with losing loved ones to pnemonia, typhus, measels, mumps, rubella, typhoid, smallpox, and polio... And even the spanish flu 100 years ago. It isn't ideal, but it is something that the people who live through it will find ways to cope with.

We all cope with what we cannot control.  This we can control, or at least control better, as other countries have shown.

The only countries that have been effective at this are island nations. Iceland, New Zealand, and Taiwan, and they did it by placing early and hard quarantines on their national points of entry for everyone. That ship sailed for us back in January. The only other nations that have any degree of limited success had to go full-on security state on their own citizens.

Quote
And what do you think the older generations did when there was an outbreak of typhus, yellow fever, small pox, measles, or polio?  People who got it were immediately quarantined.  No questions, no "you don't have the right," none of this nonsense.  Read up on Typhoid Mary.  Public health trumps individual rights.

And those "quarantines" weren't very effective in a number of cases, my great-grandparents had a brother of my great-grandfather come stay with them after the mine he worked at was shut down due to a cholera outbreak. Guess what? He brought it to them, 2 dead kids, and having their house burned down later.... (Well, at least they were paid for the house before they burned it down)

Quote
When there was an outbreak of these diseases, do you think the older generation said, "Oh, well, we'll just wait until herd immunity takes care of it?"  No, they quarantined everyone who had them.  They shut down businesses like swimming pools and movie theaters.  They did everything they could.

Has anyone here advocated for people with Covid19 to NOT isolate themselves?

What you've had is people advocating against the near-total shutdowns and certain measures that have been imposed in mostly democrat-controlled parts of the country.

Quote
Covid-19 spreads from those who don't show, or have not yet shown, symptoms.  So just quarantining the sick won't work.  In that respect, this is worse than most of those diseases.  You don't think the older generation would have done everything that they could?

And you think this is unique to Covid19?

The Spanish Flu shut down many american communities for 3 to 4 months, or in the case of places like Denver, it shut them down twice, once for 2.5 months, and again for not quite 4 months. And even then they weren't ever truly going for eradication, they generally reopened once the case load had dropped to a level that could be managed.

37
Quote
our “scientific” solution is fantasy informed by ex post facto pontification. The option left to the United States is herd immunity in conjunction with a vaccine that must be at least 75% effective according to a 237-page report from the National Academy of Medicine, published October 2. Alternatively, we could go through the same process of viral mutation that rendered the 1918 H1N1 influenza A virus into our present seasonal flu.

I've heard that we need to have about 80% of people infected before heard immunity kicks in.

Either way, you're talking about 1.5 to 2 million Americans DEAD from those infected.  That is your preferred plan?  ::)

I'm highly dubious of the 1.5 million dead claim on the "let it run" scenario at this stage. Too many instances of "community spread" where the person who spread it was never able to be identified, which says there are a legion of Covid19 cases out there which were never "confirmed cases" to work against that 2% mortality rate number, although that number is still slowly ticking downward as the current testing regime slowly whittles away on the initial 110 thousand deaths which happened in the first 2 million confirmed cases, as opposed to the 110 thousand deaths that have happened during the subsequent 5.7 million confirmed cases(yes, I know that still works out to just under 2%), but we're still having plenty of instances of the asymptomatic spreader going on, so the cohort of the Covid19 infected seems to be far larger than what the testing is finding even now.

In any case, we're probably going to have vaccines rolling out in the next few months which should make it highly unlikely that we see the death toll get anywhere near the half-million mark... And even getting to 300K is probably becoming questionable at this stage depending on vaccine trial outcomes.

If all of the trials fail, we're probably going to have to move into a "suck it up" mode anyway, we're simply not going to be able to lock things down sufficiently to properly eradicate Covid19 from our general population at this stage and the economic toll(with result impacts on mental health) is already getting to be plenty bad in its own right.

Older Generations had to contend with losing loved ones to pnemonia, typhus, measels, mumps, rubella, typhoid, smallpox, and polio... And even the spanish flu 100 years ago. It isn't ideal, but it is something that the people who live through it will find ways to cope with. Life goes on. Hopefully the vaccines work "well enough" and we can prevent a lot of that, but after a certain point you have to allow the situation to be triaged properly and in this case that means you need to allow the economists to have input too, not just the doctors.

38
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: October 12, 2020, 06:17:07 PM »
Quote
You know, back when the United States was looking at in excess of 2 million people dead from Covid19.

You mean like when Trump stated in late February: "And again, when you have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero, that's a pretty good job we've done,"

214K deaths later......

While that was what he was saying, it was when early reporting indicated a fatality rate in the 1 to 2% range, which is how you get 2 million+ people dead in a nation with 330 million people in it.

39
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: October 12, 2020, 03:45:00 PM »
Darn, I missed the fun here for several years. 

Would have been instructive to get some of the folk on the record back in March about the anticipated death count if we didn't start taking common sense national precautions.

The common sense national precautions were the "15 days to slow the spread" and to allow hospitals to stockpile/prepare for the crush of potential patients so they don't die as a consequence of inability to receive care.

You know, back when the United States was looking at in excess of 2 million people dead from Covid19.

40
So last night in Portland, protesters tore down statues of Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt in an "Indigenous Peoples' Day of Rage" protest.

41
From the first line of that link: "A new online study finds that Republicans and independents are twice as likely as Democrats to say they would not give their true opinion in a telephone poll question"

I hope you are taking this with a grain of salt...

You did notice the blurb about the American Association for Public Opinion Research? Where their findings about 2016 also happened to match up with the online polling, where the only shift noted was in regards to independents.

As to the one being "an online poll." Yes, that does warrant a grain of salt, but not all online polls are created equal, as the methodology used is wildly variable between them.

42
You do realize Trump has seen some of the best polling results among minorities that a Republican has ever seen among Blacks and Hispanics?

He isn't repelling them like you seem to think he is, but I guess we'll see once November rolls around and see who carries which areas and by how much vs historical trends.

43
Is the "shy voter" something played up on Fox?

Bloomberg, right-wing news organization that it is known to be.  ::)

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-28/new-study-suggests-polls-are-missing-shy-trump-voters

Quote
Some 11.7% of Republicans and 10.5% independents said they would not give their true opinion, vs. 5.4% of Democrats, according to the study by CloudResearch LLC, a Queens, N.Y.-based company that conducts online market research and data collection for clients. Among the reasons they gave was that “it's dangerous to express an opinion outside of the current liberal viewpoint,” according to Leib Litman, the co-chief executive officer and chief research officer.

CloudResearch conducted the survey online but inquired about surveys that are conducted by phone. It first asked participants for their political preference, then asked how they felt about divulging their preference for president in a phone poll. Later, it asked whom they actually did support for president.

...

The question of whether "shy Trump” voters were undercounted in polls before the 2016 election was part of an exhaustive post-mortem published by the American Association for Public Opinion Research. “Some Trump voters who participated in pre-election polls did not reveal themselves as Trump voters until after the election, and they outnumbered late-revealing Clinton voters," the AAPOR study said, adding, "This finding could be attributable to either late deciding or misreporting (the so-called Shy Trump effect) in the pre-election polls.”
...

44
My own expectation is regardless of who "wins" in November, the other side is going to accuse the other side of cheating. Biden has already said as much, that the only way he can lose is through "chicanery." Which I guess means he's now announced the only electoral outcome he will now accept is victory on his part.

While also declaring the American People "don't need to know" what his intentions may be regarding the Supreme Court. ::)

Which actually leaves Trump's "we'll see" seeming downright mild by comparison.

If Trump loses, the only thing to be said about that is that Trump has nobody to blame but himself, all of the leading indicators say he should have otherwise won this cycle. I could fully understand why people wouldn't want to vote for him.

Of course, the wild card in the mix is stuff that currently hasn't yet come to our attention(re: potential fraud). I certainly expect there is going to be all kinds of reporting about "balloting irregularities" which impact both sides of the political spectrum, with likewise biased reporting about such findings.

A Biden landslide is omnious for other reasons should it happen, as they may take that for "a mandate" much like Obama did(unless he's given a Republican Senate to fight with at the very least), and based on some of the things they promised during the Primaries, that could very well mean Civil War before 2022.

Not that a Trump win is much more cheery, as that could mean Civil War by January.

But I think the "shy voter" scenario is going to be in play in spades, and it is actually much worse than current attempts to esitimate it indicate. Which means Democrats are going to be crying all kinds of foul about the election results from in-person voting not matching up with their own polling results within anything close to the margin of error, unlike last time(2016).

45
General Comments / Re: Town halls and debates 2020
« on: October 11, 2020, 05:47:48 PM »
They don't trust the pollsters, they don't want their phone number tied to supporting certain candidates. And this is especially so with respect to Trump given the "popular view" in the media and social media in particular, with regards to Trump supporters being comparable to Nazis.
Social media is such that nobody sees much of anything that would upset them personally - on either side of the political divide.  A huge swathe of conservatives never see or hear anything outside of their Facebook feeds, Fox News pundits, OAN and Limbaugh.

You do realize a number of conservatives have friends who now identify as Liberals/Democrats and often get to see a lot of "interesting things" as a consequence of that? I know I certainly do.

46
General Comments / Re: Town halls and debates 2020
« on: October 11, 2020, 04:57:59 PM »
Or possibly the "shy voter effect" is less now that Trump is no longer an outsider and is the president.  <shrug>  Time will tell.

The thing about the "shy voters" is that if they're willing to lie to pollsters in general, how can the ones who managed to coax that much out of some of them expect that they've found all, or even most of them.

And the rational for the ones they could find(or think they've found) would hold equally well for the ones they possibly didn't find. (Of course, other than the retrospective poll from 4 years ago, I don't think they asked who they're really voting for after establishing they're "shy voters"--but Trump is the only candidate with a strong stigma attached towards supporting him)

They don't trust the pollsters, they don't want their phone number tied to supporting certain candidates. And this is especially so with respect to Trump given the "popular view" in the media and social media in particular, with regards to Trump supporters being comparable to Nazis.

Basically, they're not going to respond to any type of survey where their response can be traced back to them in any manner by which they'll be linked to Trump out of concern for what the consequences could be for them if that happens.

YOU can say Trump "is no longer an outsider" but it is also very plainly self-evident that a great many long-standing conservative views(which Trump represents at present) have very harsh social consequences attached to them if certain activist groups become aware of your being simply sympathetic towards them, never mind supportive of.

The Zealots of concern today are the left-wing extremists. We live in the era where instead of the guy publicly protesting the Porn Shop while being one of it's frequent customers, we now have the person publicly supporting left-wing positions is voting Conservative while in the privacy of the voting booth.

47
General Comments / Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
« on: October 11, 2020, 02:55:56 PM »
Also in light of the recent Gallup poll with that 56% number for "Yes, we're doing better than 4 years ago."

Calls into further question:

Speaking of partisanship, got a laugh out of this:
The (New York Times) YouTube video goes into detail on "the keys" and in the course of it, the good professor admits to being a Democrat and how hard it can be to keep partisanship out.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/08/05/professor-allan-lichtman-predicts-joe-biden-beat-donald-trump/3304680001/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mp_Uuz9k7Os

Of his 13 keys, he scored 6 keys in favor of Trump, and 7 in favor of Biden. As such, he's called it for Biden.

But the problem is, in this cycle, things are a bit more ambiguous.

6 keys are clearly indicating Trump. But as for the other 7?
For the ones where Trump was scored as "false":
1) "Midterm gains" - Scored as false, as the Democrats gained seats, not the republicans, so clearly a pro-Biden marker.
2) "Strong Short Term economy" - He scored that as false, because of the economic disruption form Covid.
3) "Strong Long Term economy" - He scored that as false, because of the economic disruption from Covid.
4) "No Social Unrest" - Obviously that does support Biden.
5) "No scandal" - He scored this as false. But the "trump voters" on the other hand may disagree, particularly as it looks like what became the Mueller Investigation is looking to be poised to become ObamaGate in the eyes of most Trump voters, even if the dems disagree. Likewise for most Trump voters, the impeachment was only a scandal in regards to how the Democrats conducted themselves.
6) "Major foreign/Military success" - He scored this as false. "Trump voters" may disagree on that.
7) "Charismatic incumbent" - Scored as false. I'll give him a pass on his rationale, given Trump's difficulty even reaching 50% approval and retaining it. Of course, this could arguably be "split" as he also scored "true" for "uncharismatic opponent" in Trump's favor. A Charismatic candidate is likely to have a better "connection" with their base, and thus better turnout than an opponent who lacks any meaningful charisma...

So of those 7 markers that he said were false, I'll readily agree with 3 of them(1, 4, and 7).
ISIS/ISIL and the renegotiated NAFTA aside, I guess I'll grant #6, but there is an asterisk to attach to that one.
Given the Keystone cops routine the Administration has ongoing, I'll leave #5 as mostly valid.

That gets Biden to 5 keys to Trump's 6. Which puts things entirely in the context of the economy, and the economic circumstances as a result of Covid are just so outside of the norm that I don't think any real definitive predictions can be made. So I'm inclined to split the result, if only because polling in the past has indicated people think Trump would be better able to facilitate a recovery... But the wildcard in the mix is Covid need to reach a point where a recovery can begin to properly start. Something which Trump obviously isn't helping with, but then, nobody seems to have managed to pull off a safe and effective reopening as of yet, including China with their totalitarian controls in place. So it is hard to objectively hold Trump accountable for that. So my own scoring using his criteria ends up as a Trump 7, Biden 6 decision at this time. So it indicates a Trump win, not a Biden one.

48
General Comments / Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
« on: October 11, 2020, 02:47:38 PM »
The Norpoth prediction is months old at this point and I've previously brought it up.

There are the other indicators which also would tend to strongly indicate Trump despite what the opinion polls currently reflect, but "shy voter" reporting can easily account for what is going on there, given how reluctant people are likely to be about admitting to their electoral support of Trump.

56% of Americans think they're better off now than they were 4 years ago? In the height of a pandemic? And also beating out the numbers of every other prior president in the history of that question being asked? No president who polled above the mid-40's on that number has failed to be re-elected at this time.

Then there are the other "it's the economy" oriented questions which also skew strongly in favor of Trump over Biden which would also strongly suggest Biden should be in serious trouble in the polls. People tend to vote their wallet, and their wallet for most Americans is best protected by voting Trump according to their own responses.

By the same token, I'm perfectly happy to see polling indicating "a Biden blowout" at this point as that just further motivates Trump supporters to turn up and vote and while making other possible Biden voters think they don't need to if they haven't already.

49
General Comments / Re: Town halls and debates 2020
« on: October 11, 2020, 01:39:23 PM »
The effects (if any) of the VP debate have now been factored into all the polling, and the Biden lead over Trump seems to have stabilized at above 10% (currently, it sits at 10.3%).

What with the 2nd presidential debate having been cancelled, and with the last jobs report in the rear view mirror, there is only really one more "big" event on the radar that could shift voter intentions - the '3rd' presidential debate.  But by then, a large number of votes will already have been cast.

With Biden playing "keep away" - and pretty effectively, to date - it's hard to see the dynamics changing much in the next 3 weeks.  Now, it's all about getting out the vote as opposed to convincing the vanishingly small number of remaining undecideds.

With the "shy voter effect" in play, I really wouldn't trust that. And it's something 538 is ignoring in their stuff at present.

Even for the pollsters that are trying to actively detect it, they're coming up with nearly 10% among conservatives and independents, and those are the ones they manage to get to admit to it. (It also was the rate found among the conservatives in 2016, I'd suspect its even higher for them this time around given what has happened since)

But assuming 10% is the "low ball" to the 5% among dems, and going with a 45%D, 15%I, 40%R voter makeup, 2.25%(from dems), 1.5%(from independents) and 4.5% (from Republicans) cannot be trusted. Assuming the Dems and Republicans try to cancel each other out, you're still looking at a 3.75% margin of error just from "shy voters" misleading the pollsters.

So Biden's margin potentially goes down from 10.3% nationally to 6.55%. From there, we then hit the normal methodology errors which can give you a +/- error ranging from 3 to 5%. Just going with Trump +3 and Biden -3 that 6.55% lead suddenly becomes 0.55% nationwide... And Biden needs the Electoral College to win, not the national popular vote. But as I recall, even 538 was saying that for Biden to "comfortably" win the Electoral college, he needed at least a 6% margin on the popular vote.

50
General Comments / Re: Russian Influence, where is the beef?
« on: October 10, 2020, 06:07:34 PM »
The logic behind Russia and China wanting to hurt Trump is evident. Is there any logic for them to support him? They invested a lot of money into Obama and Hillary, and Trump was on the outs in 2016. It most be worse now.

Putin wanting to support Trump? Yes. He's the clear anti-China candidate by a wide mile.

China wanting to support Trump? Snowballs chance in hell, they'd rather see Biden in office and return to Obama-esque policy positions regarding them.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 87