Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 326: Quarantine Vogue

(+) Yeah! (+)

My wife and I take the flu seriously, hell we got flu shots for the family on Sunday. The difference is that there isn't a vaccine for covid yet because it's still new and there's still so much we don't know about it. Until scientists and medical professionals state that we have a safe and effective covid vaccine, we're choosing to only see people within our pod (aka my parents), and not go into public places unless we absolutely have to, like taking one of the kids to the doctor. We already pulled our youngest out of daycare indefinitely because the center had another outbreak, and our oldest is doing virtual school this year.

My wife is incredibly high risk, and it's not worth it for us to go back to normal because I don't want my daughters to grow up without their Mom, and my wife certainly doesn't want to risk dying miserable and alone in a hospital bed.

---

Corrik7 posted...

You are responding to me. He didn't say we shouldn't take it serious. He said it is something that we probably are going to have to live with and get used to. Everyone from the onset has said it won't be eradicated and likely here forever and will be something a part of life like the flu forever. You can't just stop life due to it.

I would like to think people take the flu serious for the most part despite living their lives.

I'm responding to you regarding Trumps tweet. I wasnt trying to imply you made that argument. I was implying that Trump using an extreme year of the flu for a comparison in his original tweet didnt make the argument he thought it said.

Trump also did in fact argue COVID would just go away and definitely hasnt said previously that it is something we will have to live with.

I also dont think most people take flu prevention seriously.

---

a friendly reminder that corrik does not care

this is someone who dismisses everything as partisan exaggeration while continually caping down partisan lines

---

Corrik7 posted...

You are responding to me.

Re-reading my post I really didnt make it clear that I wasnt really arguing against you but the original Trump argument.

The rest of my post stands but yeah i see where you are coming from there.

---

Grimlyn posted...

a friendly reminder that corrik does not care

this is someone who dismisses everything as partisan exaggeration while continually caping down partisan lines

They are going to keep speaking to him, no matter how much time they waste doing so. Frustrating that people who insist we need to actually get worthwhile information out there and urge people to vote waste hours with this brick wall that will never, ever, ever change their mind and does nothing but make them look like complete fools for interacting with him.

I've given up on it.

---

Fair enough

---

Trump knows nothing about science anyways, and he's probably just dancing around the pandemic for the sake of his base. Awful PR-speak is what it is. If Trump takes the pandemic seriously he basically says goodbye to his chances of winning the election.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

The point is that the flu comparisons are stupid as fuck because theyre typically used to argue that we should have done basically nothing,

even back when there were relatively few covid deaths, i never understood this argument.

if there's a ton of flu deaths per year, shouldn't the conclusion be, i don't know, the flu is very serious and we should care more about it rather than "LOL WE SHOULDN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT EITHER THE FLU OR COVID"?

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

even back when there were relatively few covid deaths, i never understood this argument.

if there's a ton of flu deaths per year, shouldn't the conclusion be, i don't know, the flu is very serious and we should care more about it rather than "LOL WE SHOULDN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT EITHER THE FLU OR COVID"?

There are a lot of things that are very serious, but it doesn't mean you stop life for them either.

---

Corrik7 posted...

There are a lot of things that are very serious, but it doesn't mean you stop life for them either.

not saying you need to necessarily "stop life" but "you should do nothing" is also a terrible response (and this is what people are arguing when they make the flu/covid comparisons, as LotM pointed out).

---

Grimlyn posted...

a friendly reminder that corrik does not care

this is someone who dismisses everything as partisan exaggeration while continually caping down partisan lines

Yeah, I know he's not going to care about the issues my family has to deal with because of this since we're too afraid to live life and all that crap, but I still felt it needed to be said. I'll learn one of these days!

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

not saying you need to necessarily "stop life" but "you should do nothing" is also a terrible response (and this is what people are arguing when they make the flu/covid comparisons, as LotM pointed out).

We aren't doing nothing with covid. We are enhancing therapeutics and developing a vaccine.

I do believe if we knew what we did about the coronavirus now beforehand, that we likely wouldn't have locked down in most of America. We would have probably just went with masks to everyone and social distancing recommendations / large event bans.

That said, it's beyond here and there. Locking down back then was smart because there was a fog of war regarding information, and we had to assume the worst. It's a serious thing. But, it is not nearly as bad as we feared. It wasn't long ago that new York was pleading for 30k ventilators for simultaneous use. They probably haven't used that many all together throughout the pandemic let alone simultaneously.

It's a serious thing. Just now as bad as we feared and prepared for.

---

RaidenGarai posted...

Yeah, I know he's not going to care about the issues my family has to deal with because of this since we're too afraid to live life and all that crap, but I still felt it needed to be said. I'll learn one of these days!

What

---

For the people who think Trump is still going to win the election, is the rationale "oh look at those Democrats they're basically doing the same things they did in 2016 therefore they will lose?" I'd dispute it, but I'll admit I don't follow politics much beyond picking up the occasional news item in passing.

---

LinkMarioSamus posted...

For the people who think Trump is still going to win the election, is the rationale "oh look at those Democrats they're basically doing the same things they did in 2016 therefore they will lose?" I'd dispute it, but I'll admit I don't follow politics much beyond picking up the occasional news item in passing.

No. They think polls are bullshit now cuz they had Hillary as like a 99% chance to win prior to the election. So, polls are now frivolous to them. They get their information from biased youtube and Facebook sources now that is basically propaganda. And, in many cases, they are looking for what they want to hear also


---

Pretty good video on climate change

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VJXtzD1Aew&feature=youtu.be

---

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/519811-trump-administration-to-impose-new-rules-targeting-h-1b-visas

Boo this man
---

Another great TCT

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/525635174877630464?s=21
---

As someone who has a lot of risk factors for complications if I got COVID-19 I will say I don't think I have stopped living life. Like yeah going out is great and all but I have had a lot of good moments among the darkness that is this pandemic. People are way too inflexible about what life means.

---

I think Trump will win due to voter suppression efforts in key states plus Republicans/conservatives who say they wont vote for him still voting straight ticket R in the end. And of course the inherent republican advantage in the ec.

Essentially he will get crushed in the popular vote but still win the electoral college

---

If trump wins the electoral college but loses by 10 million votes do you think that would be enough to end the EC?

---

Lincoln won the EC with 39% of the popular vote. It didn't end the EC.

---

https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1313536453645864960

I know we didn't really cover much of the Project Veritas junk here since it's only the 10th or so time they've done this but here's the only SHOCKING NEWS update you'll need on it

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

If trump wins the electoral college but loses by 10 million votes do you think that would be enough to end the EC?

No. Because the same thing reasoning that gives the GOP an advantage in the electoral college also gives them the power to prevent any meaningful change from being exacted from a lawmaking standpoint.

---

red sox 777 posted...

Lincoln won the EC with 39% of the popular vote. It didn't end the EC.

Lincoln - 39.8%
Douglas - 29.5%
Breckinridge - 18.1%
Bell - 12.6%

Lincoln won by over 10% of the popular vote compared to the next closest candidate. Lincoln had the MOST votes of any candidate that year.

Do you see how providing full information is more accurate than saying "Lincoln won with 39%" as a response to a hypothetical situation where trump receives 10 million LESS votes than an opponent. Because I know you didn't say it, but your implication there is that his opponent received MORE than 39% when in reality your example bears no resemblance to the situation we've posited.

There was a 3 million vote differential in 2016 and it's not unreasonable to think the vote differential will be even higher this year regardless of who wins, and that's a scary thought.

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Lincoln - 39.8%
Douglas - 29.5%
Breckinridge - 18.1%
Bell - 12.6%

Lincoln won by over 10% of the popular vote compared to the next closest candidate. Lincoln had the MOST votes of any candidate that year.

Do you see how providing full information is more accurate than saying "Lincoln won with 39%" as a response to a hypothetical situation where trump receives 10 million LESS votes than an opponent. Because I know you didn't say it, but your implication there is that his opponent received MORE than 39% when in reality your example bears no resemblance to the situation we've posited.

There was a 3 million vote differential in 2016 and it's not unreasonable to think the vote differential will be even higher this year regardless of who wins, and that's a scary thought.

In 1860 the Democrats had a convention that was so contested they could not agree on a single candidate. The Northern Democrats and Southern Democrats ended up running separate candidates (Douglas and Breckinridge), and some Democrats broke off from the party to run a third candidate (Bell) on a unity platform. So, yes, had the Democrats run one candidate, he would most assuredly have gotten well over 50% and crushed Lincoln in the popular vote by 15%+.

---

And it would not have changed the electoral college results at all, because Lincoln won outright majorities in nearly every state in the North, which by itself was enough to win the EC. He did not make the ballot in 10 Southern states and got 1% in Virginia, which is why his popular vote percentage was abysmal for an EC winner.

---

So you are advocating for Ranked Choice voting then?

Because otherwise I don't see how anything about that election was effected the the implementation of the Electoral College.

Lincoln didn't win because of the electoral college boundary lines. He had the most votes of any candidate and that (correctly) translated to the most electoral votes.

---

My statement there did not advocate for anything, but I do advocate for the Electoral College. In that election Lincoln won all of NY's huge pool of electoral votes by winning it by 1% in the popular vote. Fair. He didn't lose any electoral votes from losing the South with <1% rather than putting up a respectable 40% - also fair. And if any candidate wins a majority of the EC while losing by 10 million, 20 million, whatever, in the popular vote - fine by me.

---

So you're saying there is an alternate reality where Breckinridge and Bell both decide not to run and Douglas carries 60% of the popular vote?

Cool Story

---

Ranked choice voting would not have changed things. Breckinridge and Bell were basically non-factors in the North, and Douglas was a non-factor in the South. If the election was decided by national popular vote, the Democrats would have coalesced around one candidate since their one unifying theme was "anyone but Lincoln." As it is, they knew the national popular vote was irrelevant and they were looking at a defeat in the EC, so their hope was to deny Lincoln a majority in the EC and throw the election into the House, where they had a majority.

---

red sox 777 posted...

My statement there did not advocate for anything, but I do advocate for the Electoral College. In that election Lincoln won all of NY's huge pool of electoral votes by winning it by 1% in the popular vote. Fair. He didn't lose any electoral votes from losing the South with <1% rather than putting up a respectable 40% - also fair. And if any candidate wins a majority of the EC while losing by 10 million, 20 million, whatever, in the popular vote - fine by me.

Somehow I doubt you'd be saying that if Hillary Clinton won the EC but lost the popular in that manner.

---

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1313551795646541824

Relief bill is dead again.

My vote is secured for Biden.

Stock market crashed immediate almost 600 points.

---

https://twitter.com/texasvoter817/status/1313167853110128640

Seems everyone thinks Biden is the better choice these days.

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

If trump wins the electoral college but loses by 10 million votes do you think that would be enough to end the EC?

No, because doing so requires a constitutional amendment and/or a majority of electoral vote-controlling states to commit to the popular vote compact and neither will ever happen as long as the electoral college benefits the Republican party.

---

Corrik7 posted...

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1313551795646541824

Relief bill is dead again.

My vote is secured for Biden.

Stock market crashed immediate almost 600 points.

this really should be enough to ruin his chances, right? Its so insanely bad that there hasnt been anything else since that initial bill.
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

this really should be enough to ruin his chances, right? Its so insanely bad that there hasnt been anything else since that initial bill.

It's him conceding the election. Destroy economy as much as possible for Biden administration to try and win the 2024 election.

---

https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1313546737164996609

the whole ticket just going full Pro COVID

there's utterly no reason to oppose this beyond... Pence debate prep realizing he sucks and just trying to chicken out of a debate?

---

Grimlyn posted...

https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1313546737164996609

the whole ticket just going full Pro COVID

there's utterly no reason to oppose this beyond... Pence debate prep realizing he sucks and just trying to chicken out of a debate?

Or hoping to transmit the virus to Harris during the debate. Never attribute to incompetence that which can be explained by malice AND incompetence.

---

I doubt they'll go on without a plexiglass, if the debate won't provide it for her she'll should clearly just pull a Harrison and bring her own.

heh, Harris and Harrison

---

if mother allowed it Pence would be calling to mandate handshakes

---

so pence is going to be alone with a woman on stage AND without plexiglass to separate them? what a rebel!

---

I posted that if you are voting for Trump at this point after he killed the stimulus talks what are you even thinking and immediately got jumped on by people for being an idiot lol. On facebook.

---

The GOP has long LONG lost their benefit of the doubt. It was never incompetence, it was always malice.

---

Corrik, you would be even worse at negotiating than Chuck Schumer.

---

red sox 777 posted...

Corrik, you would be even worse at negotiating than Chuck Schumer.

No. You are just someone who doesn't realize he just conceded the election. Continue living in lala land.

---

Not only did we lose the stimulus bill but I'm pretty sure I lost more on the markets from Trump's words than the stimulus would put in my pocket.

---

red13n posted...

Not only did we lose the stimulus bill but I'm pretty sure I lost more on the markets from Trump's words than the stimulus would put in my pocket.

Don't worry! The stock markets are doing ju-

*Crashes*

Um... *Injects over a trillion dollars into the markets*

They're doing just fine!

*Market crashes anyway*

We can't afford another stimulus.

---

Corrik7 posted...

No. You are just someone who doesn't realize he just conceded the election. Continue living in lala land.

He knows those very people attacking you on Facebook will still vote for him no matter what and is counting on them to be enough to get the EC close enough to send to the supreme court via fraud allegations.

He is not conceding anything imo.

---

Maniac64 posted...

He knows those very people attacking you on Facebook will still vote for him no matter what and is counting on them to be enough to get the EC close enough to send to the supreme court via fraud allegations.

He is not conceding anything imo.

He is losing voters. Just not idiots in my rural area in a state he will lose anyways.

---