gearhog

Not only do you create fake statistics, you create fake awards too! Well done. Way to be consistent!

You want a math problem? 😆 What is 300,000 COVID deaths minus 200,000 COVID deaths? Think you can wrap your head around that one, Capt Calculator?

How are you making these assumptions about what the risks are? The effectiveness? The only pieces of information you could possibly use to derive that conclusion are pharmaceutical company press releases. Remember this?

Great. I think your number is perfectly acceptable. Even though we've demonstrated we can wipe out flu deaths, you're willing to return that number to the historical norm to live a normal life. Me? I don't have a line. If I were to select an arbitrary number of deaths as being acceptable, you could easily argue "why not 1 less?" or "why not 1 more?". Which is what I'm doing with Prozac. I know it's an unwinnable debate. I just want to see if he'll throw a number out there. Sorry, Prozac. What I would say is there is a minimum level of freedom I will accept. I'm more than happy to make extraordinary efforts of my own accord to keep the people around me safe. I am not willing to give anyone else the authority to mandate it.

Ok, I misunderstood the extent of preventative measures you are in favor of. No lockdowns, but no schools, restaurants, or concerts, either. Fair? Apologies if I am again misunderstanding, but I think you're saying even after a vaccine arrives, you still believe there should still be severe restrictions. If we continue to have severe restrictions after the vaccine, is it really reasonable to say the economy will get back on its feet?

You sorta didn't answer the question. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but 200,000 is about where you draw the line. Less=unfortunate, but life goes on. More=Lock it down. Good news. You're correct. 65,000 doesn't have to be as high. The COVID response effectively eliminated flu deaths. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019–2020_United_States_flu_season So now let's say you get the vaccine and COVID is a non-issue. Are you cool going back to business as usual and accepting tens of thousands of flu deaths as a cost of living? If not, which precautionary measures would you make permanent?

Did you happen to look up the results for the states you listed? It seems like you're suggesting 10% is a "tight" race.

Did you take these same precautionary measures 1 year ago? If not, what was your personal magic number threshold? 65,000? https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/preliminary-in-season-estimates.htm

Weird. I haven't been to a concert, but I've literally done all of those other things multiple times. I suppose the virus hasn't decided to lock the doors and turn off the lights where I live.

Ok. See ya.

Wanna take a wild guess as to why I might suspect that it’s possible you’re full of shit? 😂

Perfectly reasonable thing to say. I, too, would have targeted close Senate races. These close races typically occur in swing states. So, if we were to attempt to manipulate a close senate race in a swing state, which of the below Senate races would you have targeted? Georgia?

False. First, everyone here believes election fraud exists. Is that fair to say? If everyone believes election fraud exists, why does it seem to be such an emotional shock to you and others when people demonstrate the specific individual ways in which it is possible for it to be committed? Bear in mind there have been countless news reports, investigations, and demonstrations in the past 15-20 years regarding vulnerabilities of electronic voting systems. I've already posted a few and can give you several more straight away where people smarter than either of us prove, on camera, that voting machines can be easily manipulated to achieve a desired outcome. I've said repeatedly, I too believe voter fraud exists, but I simply do not know the probability of it existing to an extent to change the election. I do believe that it is possible, you believe that it's not. I don't think you're being reasonable if you swat down every example while effectively shouting "IMPOSSIBLE!". I'm not trying to make a legal ruling here. I'm not a judge. None of us are, for that matter. I'm not trying to troll you here. I'm not trying to upset you. But your emotionally charged responses are something you should account for, because it appears to cloud your reason. You seem to believe you're a smart guy and can think for yourself. I'd say you probably are. If you don't want to believe any of these people's claims, I'm fine with that. Move along. Perhaps you're worried that these things may influence someone that isn't as smart as you. I don't know what to tell ya. It seems to me your political biases are preventing you from making objective conclusions about a more important issue. That issue being one of the most important aspects of our democratic process, election, has vulnerabilities. I don't think I can answer this without insulting you. I don't want to do that, so I'm just going to leave it alone and give you that point. It seems to me you spent an inordinate amount of time diminishing his career instead of addressing his specific allegations.

Exactly. If nothing else, it's a math problem. And the math doesn't add up. Perhaps there is an explanation that doesn't involve fraud. I have yet to hear it.

Of course it's politics. To be fair, I don't think the PA legislature had any idea the election results would be this contentious. I had read the resolution earlier in the day just after it was submitted. The statement by the Speaker had not yet been published. I was not trying to be misleading. As for Waldron, I also googled his name and this was in the first few results: "Giuliani’s first witness at the was officer retired U.S. Army Colonel Phil Waldron, a cybersecurity expert who spent half of his 30-year military career as a cavalry officer, conducting armed reconnaissance, and the last half of his career in information warfare." But I gather your point: Being a military officer with experience in information warfare or cybersecurity does not necessarily make one an expert. (see what I did there? I kid, I kid!)

Perhaps if you explicitly stated what it is you think I'm trying to do, we could clear up any misunderstandings. Also, could I ask you to quote my specific election fraud claims? It kinda seems like you're intentionally falsely attributing various election fraud claims to me. Why is it you're calling these PA representatives the "fringe of their right wing." I'd be very surprised if you knew anything about their positions apart from this single resolution. Why is it that you think the resolution didn't get voted on? Was it because it was widely disagreeable? Or was it because: “We are physically unable to consider any new legislation before the end of session. A simple resolution takes three legislative days for consideration and a concurrent resolution takes five legislative days to move through both chambers, which means we do not have the time needed to address any new resolutions in our current session,” which expires Monday as per the state constitution. ”It is obvious Pennsylvania’s election processes are in dire need of repair. Our work to ensure the chaos and confusion of the 2020 election are not repeated will continue in the next legislative session.”

How did you manage to go from complaining about me skipping your 9/11 and Holocaust question, to stating that some things just are not worthy of consideration... in two sentences... while failing to make the connection? That's impressive. Follow up question: How did you manage to write two consecutive rather wordy rebuttals in consideration of the professor's COVID thesis... just before smugly dismissing them as "not worth your consideration"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness

No, I just thought we were posting random irrelevant wikipedia articles without commentary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

"We"? "We" aren't doing anything. This was an Arizona State Legislature Public Hearing, not a court of law, and not a news source. Not sure why I'd need to be careful watching it. All that it proves is that a former US ARMY Colonel and cybersecurity expert can reasonably demonstrate that the system is capable of being hacked. Apparently, you agree with him. But you're in a rush to sort through the evidence so you can dismiss it as false. If I were to argue in favor of an election hacking accusation, and I'm not, my opening remarks to the jury wouldn't be the tangible evidence. First, I'd need them to agree that the idea of an election being hacked is possible, then proceed to walk them down the path. You're already halfway there. No one is going to blow their load in public hearing or in a state level court system fight. No state wants to be responsible for calling a contested election. The idea is to move these lawsuits through the appeals process and into the Federal Court system ASAP. We're not going to see anything of significance until then, where the real fight begins. Today's PA General Assembly Resolution: WHEREAS, The Pennsylvania House of Representatives has the duty to ensure that no citizen of this Commonwealth is disenfranchised, to insist that all elections are conducted according to the law, and to satisfy the general public that every legal vote is counted accurately; therefore be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives: (1) Recognize allegations of substantial irregularities and improprieties associated with mail-in balloting, pre-canvassing and canvassing during the November 3, 2020,election. (2) Disapprove of the infringement on the General Assembly's authority pursuant to the Constitution of the United States to regulate elections. (3) Disapprove of and disagree with the Secretary of the Commonwealth's premature certification of the results of the November 3, 2020, election regarding presidential electors. (4) Declare that the selection of presidential electors and other Statewide electoral contest results in this Commonwealth is in dispute. https://beta.documentcloud.org/documents/20418113-diamond-language-hr1094

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitch's_paradox_of_knowability

Not my professor. I also know for sure we've had COVID-19 deaths this year. If the CDC reported 2,540 fewer cases of heart disease on 18 Apr from the previous week, while simultaneously reporting 2,561 more cases of COVID-19 than the previous week, that's a net increase of 21 deaths.

I was just listening to ARMY Col Phil Waldron (Ret) discussing election cybersecurity. "Your vote is not as secure as your Venmo account." I wonder if he's lying.

"Flabbergasted" or "Apoplectic"? The consecutive posts of alternating large/small double underlined font could indicate either. I appreciate the time you've taken to present your opposing viewpoint. Just understand that I'm not a Johns Hopkins professor with a PhD. I just find it interesting that one would attempt to make such a controversial claim, and for what reason? If you're looking for somewhere to direct your apparent anger and indignation, her contact info is easily found. I fully understand that, as Mark Twain says, there are three types of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics. She has hers, you have yours. Statistics, that is. As for the claims on both sides, I think there's always an element of truth. The answer always lies in the middle. Did 300,000 people die from COVID? Possibly. Are there errors and misrepresentations within those numbers? Possibly. It's impossible for either of us to believe we 100% know what is true unless one of us has unsubstantiated faith in our sources. Brother, relax a little. If you're going to get all bent out of shape and attempt to contravene, ridicule, and silence every bit of information out of existence that competes with your beliefs, you're gonna wear yourself out. I'm glad you're skeptical of these things, as am I. Same team.

This is going to sound like a lecture to some. It's not. Just trying to sort through what's happening. I've got a rural farm and things are A-okay here. But things aren't for a lot of people and it's had me thinking about the subject above. Totally agree people are not inherently evil. I also agree society hasn't trended downward...lately. I don't know what the best definitions of good and evil are, but if we aren't talking about fictional heroes and villians, it's sort of hard to pin down. We're not talking about serial killers, rapists, terrorists, etc. Those typically don't last long. As for the rest of the world, one might say good and evil is a sliding scale. On one end, a person acts selflessly and at great sacrifice to themselves to improve the lives of others. In the middle, a person acts in self interest, but also wants the best for others, at the other end, acts to purely out of self interest at great detriment to those around them. Who are the people leading us and where do they fall on the scale? Prosperity Principles, morals, values and ethics seem to increase as people are lifted out of poverty and now have options for social behavior. As people treat one another better and have the freedom to honestly work toward their own increasing prosperity, good prevails. However, there are always people who seem to have a massive increase in prosperity without having treated those around them better. It seems that for some people who acquire massive amounts of prosperity, their principles, morals, values, and ethics diminish. If people feel they are moving toward poverty while a few are moving toward wealth and prosperity, perhaps that leads to decrease across the board of "good". Economics If prosperity is determined by economics, we can say we've enjoyed the most massive overall increase in wealth in human history over the last few decades. However, the global economy is teetering on the edge of a cliff and has been since 2008. Around 22% of US Dollars in existence have been created in the last 8 months. Around 30% of the US is facing mortgage default or eviction in the next few months. Small businesses are closing at the fastest pace ever while Big Tech has gone parabolic. Everything good and bad in the economy is driven by creation of debt, not creation of wealth. For policy makers, the decision is whether to let the whole thing implode spectacularly, or let it down gradually through devaluation. Either way, none of us regular folks will enjoy our current standard of living in 5 years. Social Unrest People are already pissed. A Google News search of "protests" today reveals massive protests around the world. France, UK, Germany, India, Iran, Poland, Belarus, etc. Social issues are at a boiling point. Combined with everything surrounding COVID and an impending personal, regional, national, and global financial crisis (decrease in prosperity), there are no improvements on the horizon. People will act out. Who is evil? Being in the airlines, It seems the world follows a similar natural progression: Aggregation and consolidation. In this case, of wealth and power. When an organization or individual achieves these things, what else could they want? More. Why? At some point, you get the idea you may have the resources to make the world a better place. Call me what you will, but the most successful people in the world have looked at the planet and believe the track we are on is an unsustainable path. We have a growing population and decreasing resources. Cultural and political differences are creating conflict. There are massive economic inequalities and suffering. If you have the technological and financial resources, would you attempt to address these problems? Would you stop this train in it's tracks and move it to track in another direction? How would you address it among a population that either doesn't care or doesn't have the same vision of a better world? What lengths would you go to achieve it? How would you bring the USA into the fold? Good usually does prevail, but not always through peaceful means, and it is often accompanied by a fair amount of bad.

Romain Grosjean. How the hell did he survive?