wxman91
-
Posts
371 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by wxman91
-
-
@Hayduke - there isn’t a good reason to defend the Portland anarchists. The peaceful protestors outnumber them by a massive amount, but some assholes just want to watch the world burn. Yes, the feds ratcheted up the tension, but that is a separate problem. Destructive protests aren’t helping anything.
Also, saying something absolute such as left-wing terrorists don’t kill people is just inviting a challenge that obfuscates the issue. Left wing terrorists in the US are more about property damage while right-wing terrorists are more likely to kill. Leave it at that and it is obvious which side is worse.
-
2
-
-
On 7/31/2020 at 10:28 PM, yzerman19 said:
Couldn’t help yourself could you? Sometime I’ll enlighten you to how the world works. Meantime, I’m going back to my $300 bottle of wine. Enjoy the debacle. In the end, I will always win. Hint: you can too if you stop listening to stupid people and trying to sound intelligent and start working hard at the right stuff.
Here’s the problem - you think that a $300 bottle of wine impresses people. I’m assuming that you are a business owner, so here’s what would actually impress us. How well paid are your employees? How good are their benefits? How long do they stay with your company? Are any of your employees on government assistance?
The world is always going to have business owners and employees. How the employees are treated is a better measure of the success of a society than the boss’s extraction of wealth.
-
13 hours ago, yzerman19 said:
They want to remake America. I’ve seen too many images of signs claiming the irredeemable nature of the US and calling for revolution. This is such a narcissistic perspective with no historical or international context. One of my favorite signs of all-time flew in Capitol Hill in Seattle. I drove by it frequently and it said LBGTQ for a no border world. I for one am proud to live in a country where you can be LBGTQ with equal protection. I could care less how you were made and who you want to sleep with or how you identify. The irony is in many, many countries around the world LBGTQ people are considered illegal and in many places murdering them goes unpunished, in some places it’s even state sponsored or condoned.
my point is we have it better than any nation in history in terms of freedoms and opportunities. To whine or revolt shows a true lack of perspective.
That’s a lot of hand-wringing over 1% of the population who might identify as Antifa supporters. I’m personally more afraid of Evangelical Christians trying to remake the country in their theocratic image.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, yzerman19 said:
Thank God we live in a country where all opinions, words, and symbols are allowed to exist without being infringed upon...oh wait....
Um, yes? Things can be Constitutional and still be a bad idea. Burning bibles and Confederate statues as two examples.
-
1
-
-
Catching up a bit
1) Portland - I don''t think that this is all that complicated. Portland is an activist town, and it is no surprise that the protests have lasted longer there than other places. Also, Portland has a distinct anarchist-type community. I think what we are seeing at the federal courthouse is a blending of Antifa/anarchist protests (there certainly is crossover), and those are the ones that got more destructive/violent. It also is not shocking that the tensions abated with the withdrawal of federal forces. I should note here that anarchists are not Democrats in the least (radically different values regarding the role of government). They are their own breed of crazy.
2) Herman Cain - The guy survives Stage 4 cancer and refuses to protect himself. No sympathy.
3) COVID stats - All of those sarcastic "wait for it" posts about the deaths aged poorly. We are likely to have several more weeks with 1000+ deaths/day. The good news is that the new cases and hospitalizations data has seemed to have peaked. Hopefully we see a sharp decrease from here. By the way, here is a very good writeup about the dates of reporting about deaths vs the date of the actual death: https://covidtracking.com/blog/is-there-a-right-way-to-chart-covid-19-deaths-over-time.
-
1
-
-
Already cancelling MLB games.
Edit - ok, this is funny
https://twitter.com/Doug_Exeter/status/1287757879697526784?s=20
-
1 hour ago, Bison06 said:
If the polls were so accurate why has there been a consistent conversation the last four years as to how they got it so wrong and how to improve polling?
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/why-2016-election-polls-missed-their-mark/
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/14/can-we-still-trust-polls/
I'm genuinely curious as you seem to be very knowledgeable on polls.
The 2nd link pretty much gives you the answer.
Those who felt led astray by surveys conducted during the 2016 U.S. presidential election may be surprised to learn that national polling was generally quite accurate.
National pre-election polls in 2016 indicated that Hillary Clinton would win the national popular vote by a 3-point margin, and in fact she won by 2 points. The major problem was with state-level polls, many of which missed a late swing to Trump among undecided voters and did not correct for the fact that their responding samples contained proportionally too many college-educated voters (who were more likely to favor Clinton). A silver lining is that both of these problems can be overcome, to some extent, by more rigorous survey weighting and heightened attention to the possibility of late shifts in voter preferences.
-
1
-
-
52 minutes ago, Bison06 said:
Were you not old enough to vote in 2016? You are saying the exact same things. I’m not saying it’ll work out the same way, but you’re mocking something that literally already happened Four years ago.
Not really. The idea today is that there is this "silent majority" out there that are Trump supporters but won't tell pollsters about it. That didn't happen in any relevant fashion in 2016. It was a very close election, the polls were pretty good, and the undecideds broke towards the challenger at the end. That's it. That's the full story.
This year, the polls are not close and Trump's approval ratings are terrible across all sets of information that we have.
However, I've said it here before and will say it again. Biden could very well lose. Trump has a consistent level of support and there is this weird uncertainty out there about COVID and Biden's mental acuity. What I don't think will tip the scales is the protesting/rioting. If it were Bernie, then yes, I could see the suburban support melt away. But Biden is more law & order than the leftist Dems. His two top VP candidates are a former prosecutor (who the left likes to call Cop-mala) and a National Security Advisor. Not exactly what "Antifa" would offer up.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, SiouxBoys said:
I find this statement hilarious coming from you because you've done nothing here except spew your bias beliefs. Quit acting like you're better than us and just own it.
No, I'll continue to think that I'm better than you. Thank you very much.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Goon said:
This seems kind of funderhanded.
Palm Beach County Ups the Game On Falsely Reported COVID Deaths, Some Will Blow Your Mind
We already have confirmation of the COVID impact and the likely undercount from the excess deaths metric. And LOL @ RedState.
-
2 minutes ago, UND1983 said:
Why do you think China is so active in the news this year...cause they like Trump so much and want to see him get re-elected? Me neither. Not hard to figure out who they want in office.
Oh, they are probably perfectly happy to see the US standing in the world plummet under Trump. The trade war is just collateral damage.
-
1 minute ago, Bison06 said:
Attempting to make Allies out of enemies is a bad thing? Friends close, but enemies closer.
Except when it is complete folly (like NK).
Foreign policy successes: ISIS - he gets credit for following through (and perhaps accelerating) what the Pentagon had started under Obama
Foreign policy failures:
- Embarrassing attempts to cozy up to NK - no progress at all on containment/disarmament
- Withdrawal from the Iran pact - even though it wasn't a perfect agreement, it was something. No progress on preventing a nuclear state.
- Advocating on behalf of Putin for Russia to re-enter the G-7 (G-8) despite the Crimea fiasco.
- Letting Saudi Arabia off the hook for state-sanctioned murder.
- Deterioration of relationship with China.
- Rolling back advancements made with Cuba.
-
Just now, Bison06 said:
You're missing my point. His goal isn't to be liked by the world, it's to negotiate deals that are advantageous to his constituents. Like him or not, I believe he has done a better job of putting the United States first than any previous president. That has come with consequences no doubt, but he is at least working toward accomplishing the platform he ran on. Can't say that about many previous presidents.
Putting the US first by attempting to cozy up to dictators and make our allies mistrust us?
-
1
-
-
Not even sure whether it is worth diving back into this thread, but I came across some interesting points from a local (Virginia) school board meeting that shows the difficulty in the opening decision.
- 25% of custodial staff either tested positive or had to quarantine this summer
- Extended Day summer camp - 5 out of 50 kids had to be sent home with fevers. Also a family lied on the daily health questions. Family members were at home waiting for covid test results but they sent their kids in.
- A whole lot of teachers put in for retirement or a year leave of absence
-
4 minutes ago, TheFlop said:
Possibly. Any chance the decline is in part due to people getting sick with what traditionally would have been classified as flu now being classified as "presumed" Covid 19?
There is a direct quote in the second link about only finding COVID. It does make intuitive sense that if you are trying to reduce the pathways for COVID that a side benefit would be the reduction of pathways for the seasonal influenza, which is less transmissible.
One of my concerns about schools is how they would deal with a presumed COVID case prior to testing, and how complicated it would be with the other seasonal bugs going around. If the flu is dramatically reduced, that would be a giant help.
-
1
-
-
-
2 hours ago, Kab said:
I don’t get talking points from any media, I watch the democrats and see what they do, if you think they aren’t for open borders or having felons vote you live somewhere else.
im for the rule of law, want to come here do it legally, want to vote, stay out of trouble, want a job go find one.
open borders didn’t take legislation, Obama did it by not allowing border patrol to do their job.
how do i know this, I talk to them. They told me once Obama was gone the moral in the border patrol went up 1000%.
in a 2 week period in Arizona there were over 300 illegals from China picked up trying to get in the country, just what we want with the virus coming from China.
how do I know this, it’s called research, something left wing media won’t report on.
don't trust my numbers, do the research yourself.
You are for the rule of law but you don't want to read the legislation that makes the rules? I posted the HR1 link.
Oh, no. The feelings of the poor Border Control were hurt during Obama's presidency
I'm sure you have the same concerns for the scientists that have been sidelined by the current administration.
If we want to keep from falling too far behind China and eventually India, we need to dramatically increase legal immigration. At least 1% of the total population per year, which is about triple of the rates now.
-
1
-
2
-
-
22 minutes ago, Goon said:
I think this is pretty well-known. That's why the hospitalization numbers are the only good real-time measure, IMO. But I'm not sure why this is being portrayed by some as a "gotcha".
-
2 minutes ago, homer said:
Some businesses have gotten smart, require them and sell them at the front door. I love free economy.
I was at a big (and still popular) mall last weekend. While it was less crowded, everything was open. The big difference was that the kiosks in the aisles that depend on foot traffic were mostly closed. The only ones that were staffed were the couple that were selling masks. Capitalism!
-
40 minutes ago, NoiseInsideMyHead said:
Here's some basic mathematical analysis, lest anyone wonder why I feel the way I do about masks:
CONSTANTS (per ND Dept of Health)
POSITIVE TESTS = 5126/135978 = 0.0377
ACTIVE INFECTIONS = 907/5126 = .177
MASK UTILIZATION (theoretical)
If XX percent of people wear a mask, your chances of encountering an unmasked individual at random are 100-XX in 100
i.e., 95% = 5 in 100 = 1 in 20 = .05, 85% = 15 in 100 = 1 in 6.67 = .15, and so on.
ASSUMPTIONS
1. Anyone who is "active" is shedding virus (doubtful, but I'll err on the side of extreme caution) = 0.177
2. Contraction subsequent to exposure occurs 1 in 4 times (likely very high, but haven't seen data) = 0.25
3. If you contract the virus, your odds of getting sick are the same as the overall positive rate in ND = 0.0377
(Rate of encounter) X (ND positive rate) X (ND active case, i.e. shedding virus) X (Odds of getting infected) X (ND Positive rate) = your odds of getting sick
I recently saw someone online say that 50% isn't 100%, but it's better than 0. I tend to agree.
So, at 65%, which I think is fairly representative (if not conservative) of the number of people who are WILLINGLY (i.e., pre-mandates) wearing a mask in and around GF, your odds of getting sick from a random community encounter are about 1 in 45,000. Pretty low, right? And think, NO STRIFE over forcing anyone to do anything. Free will is a powerful tool.
At 75% adoption, your odds are 1 in 63,000. Better, but honestly, how much?
At 85%, 1 in 106,000. Again, better. But at what cost? Civil harmony? People just getting along?
At 95%, which is a pipe dream, you're at 1 in 318,000. But you've divided friends, family, and neighbors, and burdened the community with enforcement to get to this point.
My thesis is that FIGHTING ABOUT MASKS is doing more societal harm than the virus itself, and that the quantifiable benefit of imposing masks on others does not result in significantly reduced risk to any person. The variance in mask utilization from 65 to 95% is about the functional equivalent of adding or subtracting a ball (or a specific range of numbers) to the PowerBall drawing. Yes, it changes the odds mathematically, but it doesn't change the fact that you are still extremely unlikely to win the jackpot.
I'm trying to wrap my head around the rate of encounter metric. Would the final definition then be the chance that you'd get COVID per encounter?
You do recognize that mask wearing is much more about transmitting than receiving the virus, right?
-
1 minute ago, Bison06 said:
I had four friends file bankruptcy in June due to their gyms being forced closed.
Yup, bad business to be in during COVID. As I mentioned earlier, I think there is a good case for a targeted rescue (bailout) of particularly hard hit small-business industries (bars, theaters, gyms). Effectively, pay them to stay closed.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Bison06 said:
I think for most people objecting to the mask has nothing to do with the mask. It has to do with opening the door to the next “new normal”.
We’ve already been lied to so many times during this pandemic that it isn’t hard to understand why there is a lack of trust when a public policy maker says “just trust us, this is only until the numbers come down” sounds eerily similar to “trust us and close your business so we can flatten the curve” which quickly became “trust us just stay closed longer, it’s worth it if it saves one life”.
If somehow, it’s impossible, citizens could be absolutely guaranteed that the mask mandate doesn’t turn into something even more demanding or infringing, most people would be ok with it. But it’s the fear of what next when you start down this road that has most people drawing this line in the sand early. I for one, completely understand that mentality.And I don't understand it, as I stated above, because a mask mandate is a very reasonable response to a pandemic and not an infringement on personal liberty.
You keep talking about businesses being closed. Can you give further examples? And how do you separate the impact of the government-mandated closures, which were limited in time and the broader issue of people not wanting to go out and do things?
Here's an interesting example. Restaurants in the states that opened early. This isn't government mandates beyond May, this is the public choosing to stay home.
-
3 minutes ago, Bison06 said:
So when will the mask mandate end?
It would be great if we could get to a point where contract tracing was able to nail down most of the cases. Just the fact that cases were low and steady was clearly not enough for AZ, FL, TX, et al. I don’t know how far away ND is from that. Clearly a very low population density has been a great help.
-
15 minutes ago, Bison06 said:
Fair argument.
Where is the line in your mind then? And who is deciding what measures are taken?
Edit: I think it fair to note that many people fight for their right to dress or not dress the way they feel is appropriate. Minneapolis is currently in a fight with many women who feel they should be able to be topless in public.
There is no good way to define a “line” as far as individual freedom vs common good.
However, thought exercise. A year ago someone informs you that there would be a global pandemic and the government has declared that everyone should wear a mask in indoor public locations. Would that have seemed all that strange? No, you’d probably be concerned about how bad the pandemic is.
If the same person said that the government would be branding you with a bar code so that they could track immigration, you’d likely freak out.
There are clearly lines that can be crossed in terms of personal freedom. But masks during a pandemic are so far on the “reasonable” side of the line it boggles my mind that we are even having this conversation.
-
2
-
2020 Dumpster Fire (Enter at your own risk)
in Community
Posted
Tracing from this is the problem with the interpretation of equal opportunity. There are people in this thread that think that because there are no longer laws on the books that stand in the way of equal opportunity everything is now on an even playing field. But that is a radical interpretation of the world in which we live with massive wealth disparities and social geography, and the problems caused by both.
In other words, we can’t just wash our hands of history and say that everyone has the same chances.