ex-President Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at low-info Boomers like my religions aunts. I have two questions:
a) Is anyone here who supports Trump bothered by lies like this?
b) Does anyone know what he's even talking about here? Like is there some grain of truth that he's embellishing on bigly?
Yeah. If all countries had open borders, Luciomtopia truly would be the land of wide open spaces.
Actually, it would remain in it's current state: an imaginary place in the mind of a troubled political pseudo-intellectual.
If it ever owned any land, my friends and I would by that place up cheap and turn it into an olive grove.
You can stop with all the caveats. This is the answer to my question. In Luciomtopia, absent a threat of direct violence to person or property, the government can't force an individual to do anything for the benefit of others. Full stop.
.
Not for STATISTICAL benefit no.
Which isn't the same at all.
If you are provenly contagious of a deadly disease you can be barred from contacting others (or not, but it wouldn't be unconstitutional). Direct threat you see? Direct, not statistical.
This is so wrong.
The BLM protests went on all over the country. I didn't go because I was over 65 and before the vaccines came out and before we knew that outside meetings were much safer than indoor meetings, but I did drive my family there.
Nobody ever stopped the anti abortion protests in red states.
The Trump campaign had rallies inside indoor stadiums. I believe Herman Cain died from Covid as a direct result of the Tulsa rally. It was
Just because many things were allowed to happen does not mean peoples rights werent broken
Yeah. When did that happen? I traveled between states during COVID and gathered privately with whoever I wanted. I'm sure there were temporary restrictions in some places on large public gatherings, parades, etc., but that's about it.
happened for private gatherings of individuals, usually religious, often jewish, in large cities. NYC. SF, Portland. Prob seattle
In Portland pretty much every other kind of large gathering was banned for quite awhile, except for the BLM events, for which the rules were not enforced.
yes of course
This is nobody.
and even if nobody they are close to is likely to be effected because people they don't know will be ever so slightly better off if they got the vax.
Again, you are talking about nobody here. Your descriptions describe a group of people that contains 0 people.
And lol at "ever so slightly better off." Complete ignorance.
Using this same logic we should ban cars from driving over 25 MPH, knives from being sharp, gasoline must find a way to be non-flammable or it will get banned, rollerblades need better brakes, hot dogs need to stop being served in buns, pogo sticks need to have less bounce, scissors need to be more dull, pools need to have a max depth of 2.5 feet and ban jumping into the pool, etc. since my grandpa would be less likely to be seriously injur
Not contagious, not contagious, not contagious, not contagious, not contagious, not contagious, not contagious, not contagious, and not contagious. I hope that helped.
Don't worry about chez. His IQ test was a false positive.
[/B]
Imagine a disease that comes along and kills less than 5 % of the population and mainly individuals with underlying conditions and has a death rate with children lower than the common flu and you force parents to get their children vaccinated and shut down schools . The vaccine itself weas developed by a pharmaceutical company that has a record of the highest lawsuit awards and in order for them to administer the vaccine you give them f
Easy to see the truth with insight about COVID isn’t ?
And yet so hard to see everything else as factual when it comes down to trump .
They have to agree to be retested? Why would they? People who tested +ve for covid generally had no interest in retesting.
Let's then ignore that there will still be false positives even after multiple tests. Is someone who definitely has a hard to transmit contagious disease treated more forcefully than someone who probably has a highly contagious disease?
Not for STATISTICAL benefit no.
Which isn't the same at all.
If you are provenly contagious of a deadly disease you can be barred from contacting others (or not, but it wouldn't be unconstitutional). Direct threat you see? Direct, not statistical.
This is a distinction w/o a difference imo. If the contagious person contacts me, it isn't a certainty that I will get sick. It's just a statistical chance.
that's a wildly bold claim, you're going to need to support that
clinician based testing, which removes all the mistakes people do when doing it themselves have over 99% accuracy
to have several false positives in a row is winning Powerball sort of outlier outcome
and when people are incompetent and do it wrong, the problem isn't the test, it's the people, and even then, it's still highly unlikely that they'd get multiple false positives
The thing is that although the politics is wrong imo and the statistical point misses the mark, there is in general a huge difference.
An action that deliberatly targets innocents is very different from an action that doesn't but has a probability of killing innocents. The fact both are statistical isn't the point. Those who leap to adding up have analysed it incorrectly.
Similarly with just about everything.
that's a wildly bold claim, you're going to need to support that
clinician based testing, which removes all the mistakes people do when doing it themselves have over 99% accuracy
to have several false positives in a row is winning Powerball sort of outlier outcome
and when people are incompetent and do it wrong, the problem isn't the test, it's the people, and even then, it's still highly unlikely that they'd get multiple false positives
Not going to have to show much work. False positives are commonly not independent.
i also want to emphasize that people screwing it up are going to lead to false negatives not false positives
The thing is that although the politics is wronge imo and the statistical point misses the mark, there is in general a huge difference.
An action that deliberatly targets innocents is very different from an action that doesn't but has a probability of killing innocents. The fact both are statistical isn't the point. Those who leap to adding up have analysed it incorrectly.
Similarly with just about everything.
What does deliberately targeting mean in this context? In my hypothetical, if I am unvaccinated and infected and I walk up to you specifically, I am targeting you, but if I walk indiscriminately among strangers, I am not? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
show what? Repeated tests dont easily remove the problem of false positives if the false positives aren't independent.
This is a distinction w/o a difference imo. If the contagious person contacts me, it isn't a certainty that I will get sick. It's just a statistical chance.
If you are shot, the damage is a range of possible events, still the violence is direct violence. But the person shooting ends up being charged depending on the actual outcome right? Not the statistical a priori probability. Shooting someone is by itself a crime then depending on the actual damage, additional charges.
If "someone in the building owns a gun and is a murderer" and thus you quarantine everyone in the building because of statistical risk that every single one might be the murderer, that's your example with the disease that exists in society, but you don't know who is contagious.
The difference is gigantic, and in some things you realize it in others you don't.
You don't charge someone who gets drunk of "statistical violence" even if getting drunk can increase the risk of becoming violent.
A few countries do charge you just if you are drunk in public.
On others you have to do stuff that is by itself not allowed.
I just never agree with the statistical approach, you agree for some things but not for others, but you fully understand the distinction can be massive.
You wouldn't accept a warrantless access to every apartment in a residential building where a fugitive entered, the Chinese would.
And you CERTAINLY wouldn't accept a complete profiling like, I dunno, incarcerating all Muslims in a city because you are certain a few Muslims terrorists are among them.
I don't know if you accept police profiling of who to stop based on the demographics that more often commit crimes in an area (again the statistical approach). Certainly many people don't.
No distinction? Lol
What does deliberately targeting mean in this context? In my hypothetical, if I am unvaccinated and infected and I walk up to you specifically, I am targeting you, but if I walk indiscriminately among strangers, I am not? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
If youi've been diagnosed with an STD and have an unprotected one night stand without saying so then that is very different to having an unprotected one night stand.
The fact it's all statistical is besides the point. Same with pretty much everything.
What does deliberately targeting mean in this context? In my hypothetical, if I am unvaccinated and infected and I walk up to you specifically, I am targeting you, but if I walk indiscriminately among strangers, I am not? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
It's not about being unvaccinated, it's about knowing you are contagious or not.
If you know you are contagious of a very deadly disease you can stay at home or take other precautions.
If a person with ebola tries to flee the hospital where he is quarantined we shoot him down in luciomland ok?
But in general if there is really a 50% lethal, airborne, contagious disease around those won't be society problems, how to avoid we all die of hunger would
show what? Repeated tests dont easily remove the problem of false positives if the false positives aren't independent.
show some instances where this happens in the real world or post just as stupidly as everyone says you do
it's up to you
but this may tell you why everyone here mocks you but sklansky and that's only because you're his little lapdog
ok
