brabus
-
Posts
4,526 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
215
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by brabus
-
-
Just now, jazzdude said:
Your timeline is wrong. Best case is about 1.5 years for the next representative race. And that ignores any local ballots before then.
There's more to it than just federal presidential elections, though that gets the most attention.
A lot of the arguments for voter ID centers around citizenship, which drives the need for an ID that validates citizenship, i.e a RealID license/identity card.
Plus, it took what, like 10 years or so to transition to RealID for air travel, which is arguably a luxury.
And like you mentioned, it doesn't solve mail in vote identity verification.I was using the presidential as a leading example, I’m well aware of the voting cycle for lower level elections. The big problem is all of these “what about...” questions are not valid arguments against ID, but I do agree they are considerations to be taken into account when developing voter requirements.
My best initial hack on absentee is signature verification, and I think for now that is sufficient (yeah signatures can be forged, but it’s a very unlikely situation).
-
All great questions/ideas - let’s act on this instead of accepting the status quo.
-
To the ID discussion:
All 50 states should require a government issued, picture ID to vote (DL, general state ID, Concealed Weapons Permit, etc.) If we started this today, everyone who doesn’t currently possess an ID has 3.5 years to get one prior to voting in 2024. Hell, even allow 14 yr olds to get state IDs that don’t expire for 5 years, then they’re not prevented from voting on their 18th birthday if they don’t get a DL from 16-18 yr old. If a person, regardless of their life situation, can’t make that happen, then they simply don’t care/put much importance on voting.
When voting, you should have to show this ID and be checked against the registered voter list. Only 6 states currently meet this. I shouldn’t be able to vote simply by walking up to the table and telling you my name and address, with no photo ID (as you currently can do in 30 states + DC).
Absentee voting still requires the same things except you obviously can’t show the ID in person, so at min require signature verification (compare gov ID signature with affidavit signature).
-
On 12/16/2020 at 8:42 AM, Sua Sponte said:
Does the election system have voting fraud? Yes, it happens every election. Is it rampant enough to swing an election? Historically and statistically the data tells us no.
On 12/15/2020 at 4:38 PM, 17D_guy said:Because it's not.
Well you guys took my simple statement about voter ID and ran 90 left off the tracks. I don’t think trump won, nor did I even remotely argue there was enough fraud to change the course of the election; you just made wild assumptions based off me arguing we should have voter ID requirements. Get this train back on the tracks - what is a legitimate reason for skipping voter ID, yet requiring it for many other things (arguably less important than voting)? I honestly can’t think of a single one.
I guess it’s also totally not a big deal when finance fucks up $15k of your pay for 1.5 years or a violent offender is released from prison and kills someone a week later. Yeah, no point in trying to make the process better, let’s just let it ride. Too much effort otherwise. God I hope this shitty attitude is just your internet persona and not what you actually practice in real life.
On 12/16/2020 at 9:14 PM, Negatory said:Yeah I mean, honestly, I don’t believe you. If you have pics or proof I’d like to see it.
I’m not sure you even graduated college, let’s see that proof big shot. Unbelievable dude.
-
1
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, Negatory said:
Sample ballots in states have bubbles for candidates.
In fact, sample ballots being burned accounted for a large portion of the fake voter fraud videos shared on social media.
You know what actually surprises me, that there are dudes on here who apparently don’t see shit like this as a big deal. To the extent they either ignore it, or are incredulous to the fact it happens. To that point, you and others actually are trying to argue a well educated adult who has voted in many elections doesn’t know the difference between a ballot app vs. sample ballot vs. actual ballot. It’s laughable and sad at the same time, but enjoy keeping that cranium buried deep in the sand.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, uhhello said:
Ballots or ballot applications?
Ballots....like I could have filled in bubbles for candidates, etc. Have shredded all of them. Asinine this shit happens, and way too often.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Sua Sponte said:
Odd, Colorado registered me to vote when they issued me an ID card, placed my signature on file, etc. When I voted they mailed it to my house, the address they put in my license. Once it was mailed to me I received emails and text updates on the status of my ballot. Don’t really understand where Parler is more secure than that?
I was just poking fun at the ID thing - it was half a joke (I don’t take Parler or any social media seriously), but on a serious note...
Colorado is a great example of a shit show. I haven’t been a resident or legal voter of that state for 7 years, and despite multiple emails to the SOS, I still receive ballots for every election. Haven’t had a CO license in the same amount of time. Same exact thing with Florida (but 4 years instead of 7). I could have voted three times this election - that’s ridiculous. Good thing I’m honest, but I guarantee a lot of people aren’t.
Its simple - require a current state ID to vote in said state. Don’t have one, then you’re not voting; want to vote, than you can put the effort into getting an ID. That would go a long ways to further securing elections.
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, DosXX said:
It's Parler, you have to register and validate with an ID
Damn, parler is more secure than voting. Now ain’t that some shit!
-
32 minutes ago, Guardian said:
So do you think there are more healthy people with a big waist or more unhealthy?
There’s only one correct answer here, but that said, you know there’s plenty of genetically larger dudes who it is impossible to not lose points on the waist measurement. I don’t see the point of the measurement...just assess people on their ability to do physical work that hopefully translates to real world execution (even if only on a contingency basis). The translate part is another discussion when it comes to the current PT test.
-
21 hours ago, Negatory said:
What do you think about having our healthcare system maxed out for an indeterminate amount of time?
That’s a worthy consideration. While I skimmed the top few google hits of MSM articles basically claiming the hospital system is going to implode and we’re all fucked (of course they included quotes from well respected people like Newsome and Cuomo). I then referenced the department of health: 59% of ICU beds occupied (all patients), 68% of in-patient beds occupied (all patients). The average, combined occupancy for all beds 1975-2015 (this is the date range I could find from the CDC) was 69%. We’re currently sitting at a 63.5% combined average (source is US Dept of Health). So has COVID increased short term hospitalization use, I think absolutely. But the data does not support the fire and brimstone “maxed out” messaging from the MSM and some governors. Of course continuous assessment is prudent, and YMMV at the local town/city level, but at the national level/big picture, let’s stop buying into the apocalyptic messaging and actually form viewpoints and decisions on the data, and not on hypothetical fear-mongering.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, jice said:
Would you trade 4 years of economic ruin and decreased life expectancy to call them on it?
False dichotomy.
Economic ruin is a choice that has been made for us at primarily the gubernatorial level. We could choose to not keep sticking the economic-destruction revolver in our mouth and pulling the trigger, but we decide of our own free will to do it. We could have an open economy while using sensible “middle ground” methods to reduce the effect of viruses, but we have chosen not to. The bogey man is not COVID, it’s ultimately runaway governors.
How has our life expectancy changed? I don’t think we have nearly enough data to change the “official” average life expectancy values. I’m not saying it won’t go down, but I don’t think we can accurately make a statement one way or the other on that one at this point. And if it goes down, will it be drastic or insignificant from a historical perspective? The only true answer is we don’t know yet.-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, Prozac said:
Certainly the risks of not having a vaccinated population (lives lost, extended economic misery, severe interruptions to education, etc.) outweigh the small risk to your person, wouldn’t you agree?
Devils advocate: 90% of the population has < 1% chance of dying from covid, if they get it to begin with. For a majority of the population, where is the personal incentive to get a vaccine with no longterm data, just to try to increase their chance of life from 99.x% to 99.y%? It may make a lot more sense for those who are in an elevated risk situation, whether if it’s themselves or someone they live with/interact closely with on a regular basis. But overall, 90% have a 0.x% of death and an unknown % chance of negative consequences of taking this vaccine. It’s not a “small” risk to your person as you stated, it’s an unknown risk. That risk may turn out to be very low, it also may turn out to be unacceptably high. Give it several years of data build up and people will soften to the idea if the longterm data supports the currently unsupported “small risk” side of the argument. I hope it is low risk and works like a champ, but we simply don’t know yet.
My body my choice - acceptable for abortion (killing millions depending on your view), but not acceptable for injecting synthetic/man-made shit into your body that may or may not end in terrible longterm effects. Non-sensical.
-
1
-
3
-
-
Seems like it wouldn’t be difficult to code basic symbology display when passing a cockpit selectable altitude relative to exceeding a coded dive angle (not pilot selectable).
-
4 hours ago, drewpey said:
While the JCPOA wasn't great, it at least hit the pause button
Did it? Rhetorical...
4 hours ago, drewpey said:the reality is that they will do what they think is best for themselves
Agreed.
-
45 nose low, 569 kts, 1k...not a chance. There’s a reason the 214 specifies 10% dive angle rel to alt below 5k.
Question for the Eagle bros: Can you get a “break X” in the MFDs/HUD/HMCS based on altitude set in the cockpit (and hopefully also based off dive angle)?
-
8 hours ago, Negatory said:
Totally possible for the EX
Is it because they changed out the original Nintendos connected to crank pulleys for circa 1998 XBOXes? I knew it...
-
2
-
-
I’m fully aware, just too bad nonetheless.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Too bad every fighter doesn’t have AGCAS.
-
1
-
5
-
-
5 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:
Rules for thee, not rules for me.”
To be fair, that applies to a lot of politicians from both parties. But yes, Newsom is tied for worst governor with several others...can’t decide who’s a bigger POS, but there’s several who keep trying to out-do each other for that coveted title.
-
1
-
5
-
-
9 hours ago, Negatory said:
I'm definitely wrong on some other parts, but on this one (total hospitalizations and units) I'm pretty sure I've got it.
Yep, I think I misunderstood a CDC chart on total hospitalizations. The math process was sound, but an input variable was not. Chart below. I still don’t understand how they’re presenting the data in this chart, but it’s clearly not 74,573 cumulative total. My bad. FWIW, the cumulative figure I could find is 555k total hospitalization, making it 4.4% hospitalization rate amongst cases. So, 95.6% of cases aren’t hospitalized, which is still a very high number (in a good way). That also is for all ages, so rate obviously goes down significantly when you get to the under 70 bracket.
9 hours ago, Negatory said:Agree. It's not 2.2M unless literally every person got it and they won't. That's a more fair way to look at it that doesn't include either bias, as you have to consider that the majority of the population won't get it. Although I will say that if we had gone with the "herd immunity" strategy that was initially touted as maximizing liberty, it probably would have been closer to 50-60%. And if we go with an open everything up now strategy, it will be a significant chunk, which I think 12% is maybe in the ballpark. I'm skeptical about your state info for the death rates for older folks being that low, as well. Hawaii has the absolute lowest overall death to covid ratio out of any state in America, and theirs is at 1.32%. Maybe you meant 4% and 9%? Source: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_casesper100klast7days
Cool, I think we’re mostly on the same page. The hard part about conversations over the internet: easy to misinterpret other’s.
The overall point is 90% of the population has a 99+% survival rate (with 88% testing negative). Those numbers should be the bedrock on which we make large scale decisions, yet the media, social media, and govt officials are peddling fear to the masses built up to a point that is completely counter to those numbers. Don’t tell me there’s a CAT 5 hurricane literally hitting my house when it’s a light rain. Don’t tell me I must board up my windows and hoard supplies when all I need to do is shut the windows and wear a raincoat when I go outside. Hopefully that analogy makes sense.
There’s a spectrum, and no I don’t side with the “full libertarian” we should do absolutely nothing crowd, but there’s a middle ground, and many governors have gone 90 right off the tracks from the middle ground. The widespread destruction of so many portions of our lives is not rationally supported by the data. Why we can’t find reasonable middle grounds in this country on anything is going to be our downfall if we don’t get our shit together.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Negatory said:
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%
Seriously? Is this a Neil trap? Because if so, you totally got me. You just mixed two completely different data points (took the numerator from one and the denominator from the other) to generate a meaningless and irrelevant number.
Data point 1: Rate per total population. This is all people, not just those who have/had COVID...so 330M total population is the denominator, not 12.7M cases.
228.7/100K means 0.23% of the population is/will be hospitalized for COVID over the course of the virus (and of course this is subject to change, but that’s what the data from the last 8 months shows). Go ahead and expand it out like you did, but 745,710 out of 330M is still 0.23%. Using the correct denominator for the dataset makes quite a difference.
Data point 2: Rate amongst COVID cases
74,573 hospitalizations resulted from 12.7M COVID cases = 0.59% of COVID cases result in hospitalization. If I did what you did, then I could have used 330M for this data point’s denominator and claimed the hospitalization rate for people who had/have COVID is 0.022%...which is clearly incorrect.
2 hours ago, Negatory said: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’m good with that. But to go one more level for full “genuine-off,” let’s add that under 70 = 90% of the population. Let’s also not leave off that 10% of 70+ isn’t going to die because 100% of them aren’t going to get COVID. I can’t find the positivity rate broken down in age groups for national data, but if the national average is 12%, well I don’t imagine the rate for 70+ is as high as you may think. Data shows the positivity rate is higher among younger age groups, which makes sense based on the difference in lifestyles, social interaction, etc. For example, the latest data from NYC shows 18-24 have a 1.5% higher positive rate than 65-74 and 2% higher than 75+ (source:https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page#perpos). I use NYC as an example because it’s on the higher end of the scale (worst? Haven’t looked at that comparison in a while). So that tells me the older groups have a lower national positivity rate than 12% because they’re not the demographic on the high end pulling the average up. So, let use 12% (generous) of the oldest 10% of the population will get COVID. Of that group, 10% will die (using your mortality rate form this post). Let’s say 30M in the 70+ group...360k deaths. But that’s likely too high due to using a 12% positivity rate. For reference my state (which has done well) has a 0.04% death rate for 70-79 and 0.09% for 80+...so let’s not gloss over the relatively “good news” while solely highlighting the specific dumpster fires. Either way, it still sucks, but it’s certainly not the 2.2M figure you threw out for this age group a page or two back.
2 hours ago, Negatory said: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.
You’re misunderstanding my point then. I have never said this isn’t a big deal or not important enough to deal with, but we must make data-driven, unemotional decisions when it comes to wide scale public policy. I even concurred with your idea on financially supporting 70+ to enable self-quarantine, etc. Social distance, fine. Masks when meeting close contact definition, fine. Those are reasonable solutions. Destroying people’s livelihoods, putting education on pause, exacerbating/creating more mental health problems, telling people they can’t have grandma to their house for thanksgiving, and a long list of ludicrously illogical edicts are not reasonable solutions, especially when considering the unemotional data. If this was Ebola with a 50% death rate, well maybe this crazy shit would have to happen...but we’re not there, not even in the slightest. So yeah, we should care and do what we can to help others, but it’s pure ignorance, fear/other emotion, and/or thirst for power/gov control that is driving these bigger things I mention. The data alone does not lead a rational person to conclude these things are required/OK. The data does support things like social distancing, improved hygiene, quarantine when you don’t feel well/have been in close contact with someone who’s sick, etc.
-
4
-
-
5 hours ago, Negatory said:
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
The CDC has shit tons of data, way more than the planning estimates. I’ve probably spent way too much time digging through it, but on the other hand apparently a lot of people should spend more (or even some) time looking through it, vs. taking numbers from social media/MSM. But, your statement of “I don’t really care about the numbers” tells me you don’t care about the unemotional data and prefer emotion (also an extension of politics much of the time) to drive policy decisions. It also tells me you will not spend time doing real research on the CDC website either out of apathy, or fear you will only see numbers that do not support your current conclusion on this subject.
5 hours ago, Negatory said:you presented it in a way that makes the impact of COVID - the deaths of old people - not part of the discussion.
Here’s my direct quote: “ yet here we are pretending 12% positive rate and 99.86% survival rates (US under 70) are Ebola reincarnated. For comparison, last year the positive test rate for the flu was 52% and death rate was ~ .02% for under 70. So quite literally, the risk to your average, healthy person under 70 is .12% higher than the flu. Clearly risk goes exponentially up or down to age groups above and below the 70 line.”
I think I made it abundantly clear which age demographic I was talking about, including acknowledging said percentages change for going outside that demographic. So no, I did not exclude the acknowledgment of it impacting the 70+ crowd worse (in fact, I even used the word exponentially to describe the increased threat).
6 hours ago, Negatory said:Let's pretend we didn't do any decision making based on "10% of the population" (~30 million people)...
In early summer did you also say we’d have 3+ million US deaths by end of the year? Because lots of people did, including several of my intelligent friends who said I was out of my mind to think we wouldn’t, “because science.” Your doomsday math is not steeped in fact and serves more for hyperbole purposes than anything. However, through the hyperbole I do understand your point that lives matter to some unmeasurable extent and you can’t just disregard an entire age demographic. I agree with you and others on that point. To that point....
6 hours ago, Negatory said: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.
Very interesting and I am not at all opposed to an idea like this, provided obviously the details are well researched/supported and we can find a smart way to fund it. I think it makes general sense though. I think something like this is certainly better than a lot of other garbage projects/programs the gov spends money on. And I haven’t done the financial research on the $3T you mentioned, but I have to imagine something like your idea could have been funded out of that 3T in place of some bullshit that happened instead.
5 hours ago, Negatory said: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, I’m correct, but here’s the explanation...
228.7/100k is number of hospitalizations per population value, NOT per number of COVID cases. The .59% comes from 74,573 COVID hospitalizations out of a total of 12.7M COVID cases.
-
2 hours ago, Negatory said:
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
Source for all past, present, and future data: CDC. I will state if different, but prefer to stick with CDC because that’s likely the most accurate/apolitical data we have. Since you clearly didn’t read everything I wrote, I’ll reiterate that I said multiple times these numbers are nationwide average for under 70, which makes up the vast majority of our population (~90%...technically 87% up to age 64, 2010 census brackets 65+ into one group; so clearly 69 and under accounts for more than 87%).
So yes, “disclaimer” clearly stated, and you are being deceptive/attempting to discredit data because it doesn’t fit your opinion, and hoping others haven’t actually read my posts and just assume your misrepresentation of such is accurate. Absolutely none of this is misleading or inaccurate, it is 100% factual straight from the CDC. I can’t help that you don’t like the numbers, but they are quite literally unemotional, apolitical, and as accurate as the CDC is capable of producing.
Now, to your age group point: making public policy and systemic level decisions based on 10% of the population is unsound my opinion. Why would you not make decisions based on how it affects the majority (in this specific case, we’re talking data points that represent a MASSIVE majority: ~90%). The 2019 average life expectancy was 78.8, so dying beyond that, regardless of cause, is beating life expectancy. That doesn’t mean their lives weren’t important to others, but unemotionally they have done better than average. Got it, cue bleeding heart; my point is emotional decision making is an awful failure when exercised at state and federal levels (and still usually bad even at a personal level). To make public policy based on 10% of the population who are already above average age, that negatively impacts the rest of the population, is emotional decision making at its worst and terribly short-sighted.
Since you’ll probably respond with a demand for how I’d solve it - well, we should look at policy that aims to provide isolation OPTIONS for that age group, while allowing the other 90% access to the things they need to live life (and that includes things that contribute to mental well being). Let the 70+ demographic choose how to proceed - it’s their life and they should make the call, not the government. Maybe you don’t talk to enough 70+ year olds, because all of my family and friend’s families who are in that bracket are pissed and just want to be the ones who decide for themselves. Stop treating them like children who can’t make adult decisions.
But what about the hospitals? I agree, that’s an important question to ask/valid data point to take into account when making decisions. As of 14 Nov, COVID hospitalization rate is 228.7 per 100k population. Breaking it down to specifically COVID cases relative to number of those that end in hospitalization - 0.59%. All from the CDC, covering the entire age range. I get it that in city X it is way worse than that, but its disingenuous to yell about that city while ignoring city Y that isn’t overrun at all. We’re talking state/federal level policy here, or at least I am.
-
4
-
-
Drifting off the two major, recent points down the “yeah, but...” road; to bring it back:
- Does a 12% positive test rate and a 99.86% survival rate warrant all of the current things going on? Is that our threshold for destroying businesses and the economic reliance owners and employees have on them? Is that our threshold for putting children’s education on pause for what will amount to at least a year for many? Is that our threshold that makes all the mental health decline worth it?
- Is it rational/logical to take your .14% chance of death if you get covid, and skip the vaccine until there is more time, trials, testing, etc. under its belt?
-
2
-
The Next President is...
in Squadron Bar
Posted
Man, you guys are ridiculous. “Because I’ve never personally seen X” is an incredibly stupid way to make a case. This thread (and elsewhere) is full of this bullshit notion; how about you guys acknowledge a shitload of things exist, occur, etc. in ways you haven’t personally experienced because such a thing would be impossible, as you haven’t lived in every square inch of the world, the U.S., etc.
Directly to your specific point on this subject, here’s a decent overview:
https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx
My personal experience - I’ve voted in three states that don’t require a photo ID. In one of those states there is literally nothing done beyond verifying the name I stated is on the registered voter list (checked at the time by the volunteer sitting at the check in table). Yeah, it happened...in the last 3 elections I’ve voted in (local/state and federal).
Parting shot to emphasize the point - do you disbelieve one of your airman’s claims of rape because you’ve never experienced it or seen it happen first hand? Yeah, that’s exactly how stupid your above comment comes off. And even worse, you’re not the only one in this camp.