LogFAQs > #940674975

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, Database 6 ( 01.01.2020-07.18.2020 ), DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Donald Trump is going to beat Joe Biden to a pulp.
darkknight109 06/14/20 7:03:17 PM #112:	OhhhJa posted... The virus quite obviously originated in China and when he proposed the travel ban that was before anybody really knew what the fuck was going on honestly. Dude, the travel ban happened on February 2nd - people absolutely knew what was going on by that point. Chuck Schumer had already urged Trump to declare an emergency and the Democrat senators had sent their letter to Alex Azar requesting information and action a week earlier. The virus had been in the news for weeks at that point and the US had already seen its first case 12 days earlier. By that point, the travel ban was of questionable value because the virus had already spread far beyond China's borders, including into the US, and that fact was well known. Hell, Trump wasn't even the first world leader to ban travel from China, not by a long shot (contrary to his claims on the subject). Six countries announced travel restrictions prior to January 30 when the WHO declared a global health emergency; six more announced travel restrictions the same day as the announcement, followed by 11 countries announcing their own bans the same day that Trump did (Jan. 31), except unlike Trump's ban, most of those restrictions were effective immediately; by the time Trump's ban actually took effect, 15 more countries had implemented similar or tougher bans, making 38 countries that implemented travel bans before or simultaneous to Trump's. Even on the one thing that Trump claims to have been proactive on, he was - at best - riding the curve. OhhhJa posted... Hell, nobody really still seems to know what's going on. The CDC and WHO keep flip flopping on numerous details about the virus. Yes, that's what happens when you have a brand new, very deadly virus spreading rapidly across the globe. The CDC, the WHO, and every other health organization on the planet are acting on the best data they have, which is incomplete and rapidly evolving. They're not going to get everything correct immediately and they don't have time to wait until they're 100% sure of the facts; they have to go with their best guess at the time, then update as better data becomes available. emagdnE posted... Biden only does well in polls now because people don't actually know anything about him. I'm curious how long you're going to keep insisting this. I fully expect that on November 1, with Biden still leading in the polls, you'll still be barking about how his numbers are going to drop "any day now" once Trump and the Republicans really start attacking him. emagdnE posted... (And as noted, 2016 proved polls are super unreliable.) The polls in 2016 were accurate within their margin of error. There was nothing unreliable about them. A reminder that Trump barely scraped out a win against the least popular Democrat candidate of all time. His margin of victory was less than 100k voters spread across three states. If you filled a single football stadium with Trump voters and convinced them to switch their votes to Hillary, she'd be running for re-election right now and Trump would have spent the last four years golfing (so not much change there, really...). The 2016 election was the closest election in the last 50 years that didn't feature someone named "George W. Bush". That's pretty much exactly what the polls said it would be. emagdnE posted... Bernie was the right choice. Both in 2016 and 2020. Pretty pathetic that he couldn't beat Hillary or Biden then. Doesn't speak much for his ability to win the national vote if he can't even convince a majority of his own party that he's a good candidate. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:940674975] in Donald Tru... [t:78756585]...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted... </cite> <quote>The virus quite obviously originated in China and when he proposed the travel ban that was before anybody really knew what the fuck was going on honestly.</quote>Dude, the travel ban happened on February 2nd - people absolutely knew what was going on by that point. Chuck Schumer had already urged Trump to declare an emergency and the Democrat senators had sent their letter to Alex Azar requesting information and action a week earlier. The virus had been in the news for weeks at that point and the US had already seen its first case 12 days earlier. By that point, the travel ban was of questionable value because the virus had already spread far beyond China's borders, including into the US, and that fact was well known. Hell, Trump wasn't even the first world leader to ban travel from China, not by a long shot (contrary to his claims on the subject). Six countries announced travel restrictions prior to January 30 when the WHO declared a global health emergency; six more announced travel restrictions the same day as the announcement, followed by 11 countries announcing their own bans the same day that Trump did (Jan. 31), except unlike Trump's ban, most of those restrictions were effective immediately; by the time Trump's ban actually took effect, 15 more countries had implemented similar or tougher bans, making 38 countries that implemented travel bans before or simultaneous to Trump's. Even on the one thing that Trump claims to have been proactive on, he was - at best - riding the curve. OhhhJa posted... </cite> <quote>Hell, nobody really still seems to know what's going on. The CDC and WHO keep flip flopping on numerous details about the virus.</quote>Yes, that's what happens when you have a brand new, very deadly virus spreading rapidly across the globe. The CDC, the WHO, and every other health organization on the planet are acting on the best data they have, which is incomplete and rapidly evolving. They're not going to get everything correct immediately and they don't have time to wait until they're 100% sure of the facts; they have to go with their best guess at the time, then update as better data becomes available. emagdnE posted... </cite> <quote>Biden only does well in polls now because people don't actually know anything about him.</quote>I'm curious how long you're going to keep insisting this. I fully expect that on November 1, with Biden still leading in the polls, you'll still be barking about how his numbers are going to drop "any day now" once Trump and the Republicans really start attacking him. emagdnE posted... </cite> <quote>(And as noted, 2016 proved polls are super unreliable.)</quote>The polls in 2016 were accurate within their margin of error. There was nothing unreliable about them. A reminder that Trump barely scraped out a win against the least popular Democrat candidate of all time. His margin of victory was less than 100k voters spread across three states. If you filled a single football stadium with Trump voters and convinced them to switch their votes to Hillary, she'd be running for re-election right now and Trump would have spent the last four years golfing (so not much change there, really...). The 2016 election was the closest election in the last 50 years that didn't feature someone named "George W. Bush". That's pretty much exactly what the polls said it would be. emagdnE posted... </cite> <quote>Bernie was the right choice. Both in 2016 and 2020.</quote>Pretty pathetic that he couldn't beat Hillary or Biden then. Doesn't speak much for his ability to win the national vote if he can't even convince a majority of his own party that he's a good candidate. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1