Biden thread

This is the Trafalgar Group's 2020 map as of now. Their polls in 2016 predicted the exact amount of electoral college votes Trump would win.

 

wow, didn't expect a landslide prediction. I'm not that optimistic lol. Lots of issues with mail in voting, blind hatred for Trump (voting against Trump, rather than for Biden). idk we'll see. I think it might be close, but I think Trump will actually win the popular vote and the electoral vote this time.

 

Yeah nobody really knows to what extent mail-in voting will effect things. What's more important is keeping states from counting votes after election day. Republicans have won some court cases on that recently. PA can still count votes 3 days after the election, which could be detrimental for Republicans if Trump doesn't have a good lead on election day.

 

I don't even understand the point of counting late ballots. We've had so much time to make a decision and fill in our ballots. What's the point of late ballots?
Also, how do late ballots effect either party? It's the same ballots, just... late.

 

Imagine thinking democrats would win Florida, Texas and South Carolina. Lmao liberals are actual retards.

Way more accurate with this one

 

Every trump supporter is white, go outside guys, one wonder you so pale.

 

My thoughts exactly.

lmao, turn those three historically republican states red on that liberal map prediction and Trump wins by a decent margin. Maybe a landslide victory is coming...

Election map predictions are, for the most part, not even predictions anymore. So many of them are just to demoralize voters on one side or another, so they feel that their is no chance and therefore no point in taking the time to vote. They're ruining their credibility.

 

https://www.freeriderhd.com/t/751434-4-boxes

yeeeeee

 

the only way Biden can lose is if he goes out there and does something stupid and proves that has dyslexia.

 

This just in! Libtards no longer want the white vote!

 

ok, I appreciate the time and effort your putting into these quotes, but frankly I just don't have the time to respond quickly nor to everything, so forgive me if I miss anything...

Its really quite simple why I used that graph - the fact is that any later it would have been impossible visually determine/see the difference between countries that controlled the virus verses countries that did not, at the same time as seeing that a majority of those countries were in a very similar scenario at the time.

In reality, total number of cases per population (in my mind) does not matter as much as total number of cases. Tell me - which is worse: 10 mil cases in a country or 300+ million, or 10k cases in a country with only a few hundred thousand inhabitants. The countries that have more people in it have a larger responsibility to govern those people, hence they have more consequences when a larger number of people (but smaller in %) contract corona.

So you would rather 2% of the population, 6 million people in total dying from this virus rather than a few thousand regretful deaths? forgive me (im not too versed on the effects on well-being and such during lockdown) but personally I would prefer the latter, even if it has a detrimental effect on the economy.

However, back to the countries that controlled the virus, New Zealand and other countries literally had a strict 2 months shutdown, compared to the US's 10 month, which resulted in less economic damage at the same time as less deaths.

If it was 'too late' then what was the point of banning travel from china, and then creating a huge propaganda scheme around how that extremely heavily influenced the result of the pandemic?

The fact that there was nothing better trump could have done is true probably for a month after the virus was first reported. As trump said, he knew how dangerous the virus was, how infective, and by extension almost definitely knew the extent of the virus, even given that they had really only a few tests. If 20%+ of tests conducted are positive in the early stages, that's a bad sign (which trump obviously paid no heed to)

There were only a few hundred tests, yes, however that is obviously a lot better than none, and despite the fact that those tests showed that covid was prominent and relatively widespread around all of America, not just from returning travellers, nothing was done at the time.

There is also a pretty big flaw in your logic... You have got to remember that more covid cases directly impacts the number of deaths that occur. As you say, the death rate in the US is on par with the rest of the world, so more cases means, well, more deaths. You cannot just focus on mortality rate when infections are rising so much. 9 million cases with a 2% death rate, or a few thousand cases with a 2%, or even a theoretical 100% death rate?

Again, with the analogy, yes, continued shutdowns are really bad for the economy, health, and such, but there is no need for continued shutdowns if you can eliminate the amount of new cases to a point where you can open up without causing a cascading damaging effect. A hard shutdown at the start of the pandemic, instead of hoping that it would disappear, would have meant that the economy could completely open up by now and everyone would be completely back to normal. Instead, look at where we are now? The point of the shutdown is to try and eliminate the amount of cases, so we can get back to normal life sooner than later.

 

I wonder why

 

this is my prediction could be very off though so hard to know with how dumb polls can be, pretty sure trump will win Maine's 2nd district tho cuz I live there

 

So just to be clear, you picked that specific window of time on purpose to exaggerate the data? come on dude, you shouldn't have to exaggerate anything in an argument if you've got a solid case. If the bigger picture shows everyone was roughly in the same boat, then we were all roughly in the same boat regardless of what it looks like zoomed way in to a small window of time. That's like zooming in to a 5 day history of the S&P 500 where the market "plummeted" 1 percent and saying we didn't manage the economy well enough.

My point is- well actually my point was stupid. I did not explain myself correctly at all. You are using the term 'too late' the same way left media and Biden are - saying spread could have been prevented if the restriction were put sooner. Of course hindsight is always 20/20 and this is not fair to use against Trump seen as little was known.
What propoganda? All you heard on the news is that deaths would break into the millions by the first six months. Did that happen? No. ...It's almost as if the travel restrictions had an effect... Even if the estimates were exaggerated it is reasonable to say the restrictions had a positive effect.

idk man, New Zealand isn't looking to good. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-5...nd is in its,lockdown and border closures hit.
You must not know about their quarantine camp system they are using now too. I sure wouldn't want to be taken against my will by the government to wait out my 14 day sentence just for accidentally contracting a virus. That is one sure way to give up our basic freedoms. One thing people rarely mention is our (the citizens') responsibility to mitigate spread. The government can only do so much before taking away our basic rights and freedoms. Quarantine camps might seem logical beyond the temporary emotional effects of the quarantined population especially in the grand scheme of things, but you just can't do that to people. Not everyone is ok with that kind of treatment, especially from the government. You keep mentioning New Zealand, but they are a perfect example of why we shouldn't ever go full quarantine.

I was fine with it for the first 2 months maybe 3, but after that I just got anxious to see another fricking person, eat out, go to class, see my professors, actually be taught things instead of learning everything on my own. Being stuck at home this long without reasable justification is extremely demoralizing. I don't know which state you live in, but in California businesses keep getting shut down after a week of reopening like we are getting taunted that things might go back to normal. Finally that's over for "essential" businesses at least. Spring semester was recently announced to be all online again. I could barely stand this semster being online let alone be up for another round of this. I could go on and on about my personal experience with the shutdowns, but I want to bring things back to the broader picture.

A similar, but not so cruel method of managing the spread would be to advise the vulnerable groups to quarantine. Boom, done. If you explore around the site I sourced last post you would see that risk is ridiculously low until around age 50-60 where it starts to ramp up, so you'd still be safe in your 50's. There is also a charge showing other health conditions that increase your risk of death from covid, so they would know their risks too (the charts show specific % risks). Common sense stuff like this is what we need. Not blind, blanket shutdowns that effect everyone when not everyone is at a significant risk of death. Let people have free will and stop politicizing this (not you lol, just gov and media in general). If it weren't so politicized people would have a better sense of what we are dealing with and not choose between {covid is blown out of proportion, so lemme just party every night without a mask} or {covid is the death of humanity, so lemme just hunker down in my basement stocked up on toilet paper and a years supply of food and masks}.

For starters, all around reddit people are complaining about mental health regarding online learning. It doesn't take a whole lot of looking to find that (unless nothing motivated you to look of course). I looked because I was feeling it and so were many others. A clearer and more objective source for covid's effect on general mental health is here: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6932a1.htm

Let me just say, I did not and do not believe him when he says he knew how dangerous it was to that degree. There is no way to know how dangerous it was by percent of cases alone. There was not nearly enough data to evaluate the virus at all. If he had enacted anything stricter, he would been criticized by a lot more than just the Biden team, left media, and a few top democrats.

Ok, now we are getting to the root of our disagreement. If you and thought the same on this, then we would probably agree on everything else that follows. Total number of cases is directly related to the number of people in a country. More people in a country, more chances of a citizen of that country getting the virus. This is the only fair way to compare the US to other countries. If we are on par with the rest of the world in percent population and it is harder for us to manage (bigger population) then I'd say we are doing pretty good.

I have to disagree. By that logic, we could just split the USA into smaller little sta- wait. We are the United States of America, not State. Giving each state its own government was genius (whether we knew it or not way back then) because it allows for more "personalized" handling of issues per state. Each state is different and has different needs. The state governor is well informed on all the state's specific issues and needs, not the president. <--- I know you blamed the government in general, but I am just making the distinction between the federal and state governments because it is important to know that they both had heavy responsibilities in handling this pandemic. Also, I am trying to illustrate how cases numbers in the US, if anything, should be looked at on a 'by state' basis and not the country as a whole because we are split up into multiple state governments that are responsible for their own states.

I strongly disagree that the US as a whole has a larger responsibility because even though we are united under 1 federal government, we really are seperate states with our own governments, laws, and systems. Each state could reasonably be compared to each other and other countries (which are states too btw) to gauge how they are doing compared to the rest of the world. Especially since some states were not hit nearly as hard while others are far worse than the world average. All fault to their respective state governments, not all of them together as a whole.

I think it goes without saying that 10 mil cases is worse than 10k no matter the population, but that is not what we use to gauge the quality of response. Totals don't matter. I don't know how else to convince you of this, but maybe you should just read this: https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dsepd/ss1978/lesson3/section1.html
Lesson 3 specifically. I basically explains how epidemiologists (the experts) evaluate things like this.

If a country that small had even a 20% death rate, then they failed as a country. Not only did the have a small population to manage, but than means they needed that much fewer resources to manage the spread. They would deserve far more criticism than the US not for their total deaths, but for letting a fifth of their entire population die. Than again, it depends on how many of their people were high-risk groups, had health issues that make covid 5 times for fatal, etc. You can't oversimplify this issue to just case and death totals. The world is so much more complicated than that.

Your first statement here is true, but impossible to achieve without permanently crippling an economy. Even 1 case can spread to hundreds within a few days. You would have to wait until not a single person had covid to reopen. It doesn't matter how few cases you have, the infection rate will spike temporarily upon reopening. What matters is whether or not the spike is managable. Which it currently is if we open slowly, but some people don't want to open at all. The point of a shutdown is not to eliminate cases, never was. Look back on things and everyone was saying we need to flatten the curve, so hospitals don't get overwhelmed. Now it's, we need to eliminate the virus with shutdowns. All politics, trust me. Shutdowns are great, until they start causing long-term damage.

----------------------------------------

Thank you too for taking so much time on this. I have never discussed this with anyone before, so it's nice. I have a ton of work to do before Sunday (week's homework due date) and I will probably be too tied up to respond if you reply before then.

 

trump will rig the election

 

Nice essay

 

how do u make a prediction?

 

Because that’s how elections work you ******* dolt

https://vermontbiz.com/news/2020/oc...ect-misinformation-trump-and-kavanaugh-voting

this is how its always been, and you want to change the rules last minute so trump has a shot at winning. you’re literally a butthurt fascist, get ******

 

God trump supporters are so ******* stupid, and if he wins it’s either because his admin rigged the election or because america is too far gone. what a trash heap of a country smh

 

agreed