Negatory

Nope, there are nutters for every perspective. In fact, one side had folks that thought this would all be over by April when it "warmed up." Back in April, the President said that a mere 50-60k in total would die from Coronavirus. Seems a little incorrect now, doesn't it? And here's a hypothetical for you to wrap your mind around. How do you know we wouldn't have had 3 million US deaths if we hadn't all worn masks and done these draconic lockdown measures? Unfortunately, this is a real catch-22, as you can't rerun the simulation. "Does a 12% positive test rate and a 99.86% survival rate warrant all of the current things going on?" - That's the one that I took issue with. Not the one where you actually included the whole picture. We're in semantics at this point. You're right that you said it multiple times beforehand, and I just don't like it when things that don't include all the information are said. In regards to the CDC data, I still don't think you will find age mortality data. It's not there. I think this because I've spent dozens of hours looking at the CDC data. I'm sure you have as well, so let's not stoop to saying that we don't care. I believe you're well informed, and I think that you have interesting opinions. Of course I actually care about the data, but the more important thing in this discussion is to get on the same page. I respect your opinion, but I still disagree. The point made by you and Brabus was that this virus isn't that big of a deal in the big scheme of things because it kills older people that are already close to their expected end of life. A lot of viruses do that, including Cancer, heart disease, alzheimers, actually... almost all of them. Why do we care about them then? The comparison actually works fine, I believe. The rest of your rant is about how the government is trying to take liberty away from you in draconian ways that make no sense and don't actually help. I agree with you. I never said anything opposite of that. In fact, we should definitely be balancing liberty with our COVID response, but it's a balance of the two. I simply said that you don't get to twist a narrative by asking "Does a 12% positive test rate and a 99.86% survival rate warrant all of the current things going on?" That's not the whole story. The actual question is "Does a 12% positive test rate and a 99.86% survival rate for those under 70 and a 10% mortality for those over 70 warrant all of the current things going on?" I do believe it's selfish and flippant to want to just continue on with life without having a plan for how those actions will kill hundreds of thousands of people. Because the liberty crowd by large doesn't have a gameplan, they just want to open up. The general talking point is "old people and at risk people should figure it out and self-isolate, I demand my freedom and I want to go to Cancun." Give me a plan to take care of your fellow Americans' welfare while balancing this and I would love to discuss. Finally, I don't see how others like me can ever take you seriously based on what you said (just kidding, that is a super dramatic thing that you wrote though lol).

Alright homie, let's do the math. (I always used the population value not the number of covid cases) 228.7 per 100k equals 2287 per 1M equals 22870 per 10M equals 228700 per 100M We have 330M population in the US, that's 3.3 times the 228700, or 745710 hospitalizations in the US of A. 745710 hospitalizations divided by 12.7M = 5.9%

The fact that you either have to vote for her or Trump is exactly what is wrong with the two party system in America. Dems and republicans include too many groups that totally make no sense pairing up.

I think you made a mistake here. 228.7/100k means with 330,000,000 people, you have had 755k hospitalizations. We've had ~13M cases in America, which means that 755k/13M = 5.8% of people with COVID have been hospitalized. Not 0.59%.

No, legit, I want to see where you found that. As far as I can tell the CDC only does pandemic planning estimates, and they haven't published any data on actual age related morbidity. It doesn't really matter, as I don't really care about the numbers that much, as long as everyone is on the same page: it doesn't kill young people under 60 basically at all, and it does kill old people at an unreasonably high rate. Hey bro, I'll give you credit for the majority of the times you did say it. But the last time you didn't when you said it was a 12% positive test rate for a disease that has a 99.86% survival rate. Saying a "99.86% survival rate" vs a "99.86% survival rate for the majority of the population" are two ENTIRELY different things. Standard "words matter," and you presented it in a way that makes the impact of COVID - the deaths of old people - not part of the discussion. Let's pretend we didn't do any decision making based on "10% of the population" (~30 million people). If you didn't do anything and let "herd immunity" make it's way around, about 70-80% of the country would get the virus. So ~22 million old people. Of them, 10%+ would die. 2,000,000+ deaths is incalculable. It's hard to imagine, I'm sure, without being personally affected, but that's almost 10 times the number of US soldiers that died in WW2. It's not "unsound" or "emotional" to consider this. It's a moral imperative to consider loss of life like that, especially when they are your American countrymen drowning to death on a ventilator. With that being said, I think that you're right that policy has to consider the 90% as well. There's multiple compromises that no one seems to talk about. I'm a proponent of a temporary monthly living allowance which would go to those over the age of 67 until a vaccine is created while lifting most restrictions for the rest of the 90%. The purpose would be to help those at risk to isolate and pay for services that would enable them to lower their risk of disease (delivery services, nurses, cleaners, grocery services, etc.) This would likely be on the order of ~$1.5k per month or $18k per year/person (adjusted by income), which would come out to $540b a year for approximately 30M people. This is an expense, obviously, but giving money to people that not only need it but would have to spend it would help the economy AND it would enable the other 90% of the population to continue working. If healthy older folks don't want to quarantine, have at it. They can make the risk call themselves. This is America, after all. This seems like an ethical compromise that would probably be cheaper in the long run than having tons of businesses fail while the economy grinds to a halt. And it's better than just choosing to do nothing at all and accepting needless deaths for the economy. In the meantime, distribute information about how you can protect yourself and allow people to make decisions. Some people will make good decisions, and others will do whatever they want, but that's America. Your infection rate will go up. When you get coronavirus - which you probably will - you should be mandated to quarantine until you aren't infectious. It's two weeks, then you are basically good to go. The vaccine will be produced and distributed in 6-12 months, and we're out of the woods. We helped the old people bunker down while still enabling the 90% to pay their rent. The cost would be increased taxes to pay for it, but it would still be cheaper than the economy grinding to a halt and tons of businesses closing. EDIT: Just looked and we've already spent almost $3T on this, with most of it going to where? You and I got $1200, but that only accounts for <10% of the total stimulus. Tax breaks for big companies and millionaires are ruining/diluting actions the government could take to help. Imagine if the government spent half of $3T on ventilators/medical training/medical supplies and gave the rest to individuals at risk to isolate using their own personal liberty and judgment. Here's a pretty good breakdown on how this spending plan unfairly benefits those that it shouldn't (millionaires and billionaires that don't need assistance) https://www.propublica.org/article/the-cares-act-sent-you-a-1-200-check-but-gave-millionaires-and-billionaires-far-more Classic tax cuts for the rich in a pandemic, thanks trickle down economics/Ronald Reagan.

You have to put a disclaimer with your “99.86%” every time you write it or else you are being intentionally deceptive. What you meant to say was a 99.86% survival rate for people up to the age of 40, I assume. Also, let’s see your sources. The problem with this talking point is that it entirely skews the whole problem. Literally everyone has known for months now that young people will be okay. But as soon as you hit 50-59 your case fatality rate hits 0.5-1.0%. 60-69 is 2-4%. The real problem, though, is that 70 year olds have a 5-10% mortality rate and 80 year olds have a 15%+ mortality rate. And you’re ignoring that? This is the actual issue, and you can’t just gloss over the portion of mortality that doesn’t fit your narrative because it’s convenient. Although I have noticed talk radio loves to try. It’s akin to saying “Cancer/heart disease/[insert literally 90% of diseases] isn’t important to study because it largely doesn’t affect young people.” Now if you want to say that you’ve accepted the risk of older people dying - that that is a sacrifice we should make as a society - then at least you’re being genuine. Realistically there obviously has to be balance, but saying this isn’t a disease that’s more fatal than the flu and trying to discredit it with misleading statistics adds nothing to the conversation. Heres an actual source with case fatality rates: https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid

Guys, isn’t it the libs’ job to be triggered?

Your videos focus primarily on the 1800s and a single quote from LBJ. Doesn't seem like a very rigorous argument. It's not important. The point is that neither party outwardly supports racism. Trying to argue that dems are the party of racists with these arguments is grasping at straws. And I agree that racial politics and identity politics are terrible. I don't support them. Many people who voted D don't. Your arguments are pedantic and churlish and, to that, I say good day. Good day, sir. I said good day! Anyways, how 'bout them Bears?

So now I would like to quote my good friend guardian who always says that EXACT WORDING is the only thing that matters. The guy who won't try to understand your message, just pick apart nitnoid arguments. You said there were zero riots. Guess your credibility is shot forever.

You aren't being a genuine or honest debate partner. Every person has already said election fraud exists, just that there is absolutely no evidence that it is of any magnitude that would be even close to mattering. See here's an example of a terrible citizen voting twice: https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/election/article246971357.html I recommend we throw him in jail. Or maybe he was just following what a political leader said? Maybe it's his fault? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-vote/trump-encourages-supporters-to-try-to-vote-twice-sparking-uproar-idUSKBN25U0KK The burden of proof is on you to prove something exists - not the normal system to prove something doesn't exist. That's how things work. You have circumstantial evidence, AT BEST, and you are mad that no one is listening. It's childish and embarrassing. Sorry the judges in every state keep telling you no, your lawsuits don't work. And you still need to address the easy question that you still haven't: How did republicans keep the senate when mass coordinated voter fraud against your party was conducted? The party of cognitive dissonance has spoken! This is actually the dumbest thing I've ever heard. If you think politics haven't changed in 155 years, I've got literally nothing for you. In case you're wondering, David Duke, the current leader of the KKK in 2020, publicly endorsed the person you voted for, multiple times. Here's a few more: Don Black (former grand wizard), Rachel Pendergraff (Knights Party organizer), Matthew Heimbach (leader of the White Nationalist Traditionalist Worker Party). Almost every white supremacist group in America publicly endorsed Trump. I guess by the circular logic in your post, you guys are officially 100% the party of racists. Sorry brother. There's a fact for you that you can try to wrap your mind around. But of course that's not how this works. It's not how anything works. Just because racists support Trump doesn't make all republicans racist. But definitely moreso just because "democrat" used to mean something entirely different 155 years ago doesn't mean it has any impact to the current party. And your decision to determine that black people only vote for dems because they were scared into it is terribly demeaning and oversimplifies a whole group's thought process. But I wouldn't expect any more from you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally 1 dead, 33 injured https://www.npr.org/2020/05/14/855918852/heavily-armed-protesters-gather-again-at-michigans-capitol-denouncing-home-order https://www.dw.com/en/fbi-stops-plot-to-overthrow-michigan-state-government-and-kidnap-governor/a-55208647 You're right, the right doesn't protest. They just go straight to literal domestic terrorism and capture and overthrow of the government. Because you can totally generalize actions of a few to an entire political party. Same for you, brother. You literally can't even accept things that you write as facts, as was evidenced by the last couple days.

Along those lines, I don’t usually watch Bill Maher, but I did happen to see this clip of him calling out some of the delusions of the current Democratic Party and why they didn’t do as well as they thought they would in the elections. I thought this really hit the nail on the head when it came down to what is wrong with “woke” culture.

True, some portions of the narrative on the left are abhorrent. Basically everything you said, I agree with. You can’t defund the police, you can’t tell every 30 year old white dude he’s racist and sexist just for existing, and “cancel culture” is doing quite a bit of driving people to be even more partisan than before. I believe the far right’s attacks on science, the government (intelligence, HHS, etc), and media are more damaging to the country, though. Not far more - but more. This is literally becoming the party that is proud to see evidence and reject it just to reject it - not because there is logic or morality. A literal normalized saying right now is “fake news,” and I know people that are proud to say that to anything that doesn’t align with their current worldview. If you think about it, how can you ever reason with people like this?

Ooh, quotes! Let me do one for you: “In a way, the world−view of the Party imposed itself most successfully on people incapable of understanding it. They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening. By lack of understanding they remained sane. They simply swallowed everything, and what they swallowed did them no harm, because it left no residue behind, just as a grain of corn will pass undigested through the body of a bird.” Heres one more: ”The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” This is fun.

What does that even mean?

Dude just address the point above or take a break. Not being able to back down, no matter what, isn’t winning over many people.

Guardian. Here’s your logic: 1) 2600 votes were just found in one county 2) GA is split by 14k votes 3) 4 more similarly sized counties could turn GA (5 total) Lets do the math. 2600 x 5 = 13,000 total potential votes You need 14,000, so to determine the percentage that would need to be for Trump: 14,000/13,000 = 1.077 So, I guess by the logic of only reading literally exactly what you said, you would just need 107.7% of all the votes in 5 equally sized counties to be found and to go to Trump. Can we call that accurate?

It is interesting how normalized it seems for a president to hypothetically impose unilateral military action. Wasn’t this sort of thing designed to go through Congress? I blame Bush and Obama.

A republican controlled county did a bad job of counting their own votes? And it doesn’t come close to affecting anything? Thoughts?

Do they hear the >5M republicans?

I agree. Delaware, Vermont, Rhode Island, DC, Hawaii. All more examples of places that have more voting weight than they should.

That's fine, you guys are cleared to disagree. I still think you're wrong. There are more republican voters in California, whose votes don't matter at all, than those in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and West Virginia combined. If you look into it, you aren't really following the constitutional founding fathers' intentions. The number of electors was always intended to be the number of senators plus the number of representatives. As our society grew from about 35k people / representative to the 700k people / rep that we have now, the impact of the people should have increased proportionally because the number of representatives should have increased. George Washington argued that there should be a representative for every 30k people. But in 1913, # of representatives was capped arbitrarily to 435. This contributed, strongly, to the undue voter weight of extremely small portions of America and the disregard for vast sects of society. Now the tyranny of the minority has resulted in 2 of the last 3 presidents being elected by the minority of voters. Before, this had only happened 3 times. I'm doubtful this was the intent of the constitution or the founding fathers. Or maybe California should just split into 5-10 smaller states so that their voices are heard.

In my mind that's a pretty complicated answer, haha. I think the simplest answer is that there probably isn't significant enough fraud on either side to matter. Not saying it doesn't make sense, though.

Just wait until deepfakes make up 90% of internet content in 5 years. It will only get worse. https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/artificial-intelligence-created-deepfake-videos-22761685 Mark my words, in 5 years the same crowd is going to be sending deepfakes of Biden molesting kids or murdering people and share that as truth. And a questionably high % of America will believe it because it aligns with their politics.

It doesn't "absolutely still make sense." There have been over 700 formal proposals to get rid of the electoral college since 1800, with it almost happening in the Bayh-Celler amendment of 1970. Which was only defeated due to a real philosophical and legal marvel - the filibuster. It's not like it is some philosophical truth. In my opinion, it's antithetical to true democracy.

Still looking for your response to the cognitive dissonance question of the hour: Why did dems allow republicans to win the senate if they were controlling everything through massive manipulation? Could it be that Trump actually is unpopular? Maybe when you receive 5 million less popular votes than the other guy, you should lose? And your whole argument still boils down to people's Presidential votes from Wyoming, North Dakota, and Alaska should count 2-3 times as much as someone from California, Florida, or Texas. That's the electoral college, a totally logical thing that definitely makes sense in the modern world.