2020 Politics Thread - Enter At Your Own Risk - RULES IN OP

[coachnip13]

Originally Posted by ucLAkers

I am #1 most awesome at sarcasm...and you are still clueless. You cant stop me now anyways....En Fuego Coach...En Fuego

"Most awesome".

[Jgil316]

Of the 16 people Federal office I checked (POTUS, Senate and House) the following break down on who had the virus is:


Republicans: 11
Democrats: 5


Now - on the surface - the data says that Republicans have more infection. However, lets take a look a little deeper to get the "real" story and let data drive our decision making.

House has:
Republicans: 198
Democrats: 232

Senate has:
Republicans: 53
Democrats: 47

President and VP
Republican's: 2

From this sampling we get:

Republicans: 253
Democrats: 279
Total: 532

So:
3.20% of this total population has tested positive (so far) Covid

Republicans: 4.35% of the Republican reps tested positive
Democrat: 1.79% of the Democratic reps tested positive.

With this data (so far): Republican's have an infection rate 2.4 times higher than Democrats.

Why is that?

[ucLAkers]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

I guess that means it has to be at your house.

It would only make sense to do it at a crowded bar in Florida...

[ucLAkers]

Originally Posted by Jgil316

Of the 16 people Federal office I checked (POTUS, Senate and House) the following break down on who had the virus is:


Republicans: 11
Democrats: 5


Now - on the surface - the data says that Republicans have more infection. However, lets take a look a little deeper to get the "real" story and let data drive our decision making.

House has:
Republicans: 198
Democrats: 232

Senate has:
Republicans: 53
Democrats: 47

President and VP
Republican's: 2

From this sampling we get:

Republicans: 253
Democrats: 279
Total: 532

So:
3.20% of this total population has tested positive (so far) Covid

Republicans: 4.35% of the Republican reps tested positive
Democrat: 1.79% of the Democratic reps tested positive.

With this data (so far): Republican's have an infection rate 2.4 times higher than Democrats.

Why is that?

No clue? Why?

[corndog]

[trixstar]

[ucLAkers]

Originally Posted by coachnip13

"Most awesome".

Take a breather and read some fake news

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/04/tru...ke-facts-true/

[techtre2003]

Reading thru the conversations today and wanting to clarify a definition with the group in hopes of finding some common ground. It seems many in this thread have very different interpretations of this and I’m curious to hear opinions:

What is the difference between not agreeing with or supporting X versus having a phobia or being a “phobic” towards it?

This isn’t meant to be a partisan question, because both sides are critical of various groups, organizations, beliefs, etc that could easily be labeled with a -phobic or -ism tag.

To me the difference would be even if you don't agree or support something you accept it for what it is and not judge. I think those types of things can be discussed and argued if all parties involved agree to it but I don't think dissenting opinions should be thrown out at others unsolicited.

[trixstar]

Someone attacked (sucker punched) rick Moran is in the face this morning in NYC

[coachnip13]

Originally Posted by Jgil316

Of the 16 people Federal office I checked (POTUS, Senate and House) the following break down on who had the virus is:


Republicans: 11
Democrats: 5


With this data (so far): Republican's have an infection rate 2.4 times higher than Democrats.

Why is that?

I'm not sure that 11 vs. 5 is statistically significant enough to make some kind of party-based conclusion.

[calculusdork]

Originally Posted by trixstar

Someone attacked (sucker punched) rick Moran is in the face this morning in NYC

Chris Evans and I are going to find and kill his attacker.

[ucLAkers]

Originally Posted by corndog

Sure....has he found his car keys yet?

[DegaBama]

Originally Posted by fungi2510

Why should we denounce the thought that Black Lives do matter. Whites are not supreme. Do you see the difference?

The organization doesn't matter.

[calculusdork]

Originally Posted by fungi2510

So, we do nothing to repair it? I think there is definitely the beginnings of the Civil War during Obama for the simple reason that an African-American man was in the White House. Many could not stand that, so yes there was a division at that point. Trump has widened that chasm, and I do not think you can argue that point. Someone posted Acosta's tweets from 2017: Trump denounced racism, but did not particularly address White Supremacy. These actions divide. Leaders are supposed to bring people together.

I'd love for you or anyone attempt to support this theory with facts. I've heard this statement many times before. I live in Ala-freakin-bama, and not once during Obama's eight years in office did I ever hear one person of any color voice their discontent with having a black POTUS.

[DegaBama]

Originally Posted by Jgil316

Of the 16 people Federal office I checked (POTUS, Senate and House) the following break down on who had the virus is:


Republicans: 11
Democrats: 5


Now - on the surface - the data says that Republicans have more infection. However, lets take a look a little deeper to get the "real" story and let data drive our decision making.

House has:
Republicans: 198
Democrats: 232

Senate has:
Republicans: 53
Democrats: 47

President and VP
Republican's: 2

From this sampling we get:

Republicans: 253
Democrats: 279
Total: 532

So:
3.20% of this total population has tested positive (so far) Covid

Republicans: 4.35% of the Republican reps tested positive
Democrat: 1.79% of the Democratic reps tested positive.

With this data (so far): Republican's have an infection rate 2.4 times higher than Democrats.

Why is that?

No clue, but let's assume it's because they are more "free" with the virus.

My response has always been... so? We know the risks, you protect yourself as you see fit. Scared to get the virus? Stay home.

[coachnip13]

Originally Posted by calculusdork

I'd love for you or anyone attempt to support this theory with facts. I've heard this statement many times before. I live in Ala-freakin-bama, and not once during Obama's eight years in office did I ever hear one person of any color voice their discontent with having a black POTUS.

It's similar to the criticism when Charlie Strong was fired at Texas. "The boosters didn't want a black coach!!!" Actually, they didn't want to lose 7 games every year, but it's convenient to just call them racist.

[DegaBama]

Originally Posted by calculusdork

I'd love for you or anyone attempt to support this theory with facts. I've heard this statement many times before. I live in Ala-freakin-bama, and not once during Obama's eight years in office did I ever hear one person of any color voice their discontent with having a black POTUS.

Same. Now, people didn't like him but it wasn't because of his color, it was because he is a Democrat. If he was a Republican, they would love him.

[Jgil316]

Originally Posted by coachnip13

I'm not sure that 11 vs. 5 is statistically significant enough to make some kind of party-based conclusion.

Small sample - I agree with you, however - that is the pool of positives I pulled from - And it tells a story: (there were 3 more but 2 were candidates and one person in nether party so I didn't pull them in. If I did, it would be 1 more for R, 1 more for D and 1 neither)

The data (even though small) shows the party who has had contempt for masks had a 2.4 times higher infection rate than the party who embraced masks (so far)

[Hootiefish]

I would argue the most damage that the Trump "presidency" has done to our country would be the appointment of various Bond villains to head our federal agencies.

https://defector.com/william-pendley...gets-the-boot/

[Hootiefish]

Originally Posted by DegaBama

Same. Now, people didn't like him but it wasn't because of his color, it was because he is a Democrat. If he was a Republican, they would love him.

So those images of him hanging from a noose, pics of him with a noose, memes of him as a monkey, memes of his wife as a monkey, memes referencing lynching him, and the whole birther movement ... all of that was simply because he was a Democrat?

[JustRachel]

Originally Posted by coachnip13

Ah, there it is again. The best part of my day is baiting the left into calling me names. It's like a cat toying with an injured mouse.

There's a word for this.



Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

[fungi2510]

Originally Posted by Hootiefish

So those images of him hanging from a noose, pics of him with a noose, memes of him as a monkey, memes of his wife as a monkey, memes referencing lynching him, and the whole birther movement ... all of that was simply because he was a Democrat?

Those never happened. It was only the loony left that does stuff like that.

[DegaBama]

Originally Posted by Hootiefish

So those images of him hanging from a noose, pics of him with a noose, memes of him as a monkey, memes of his wife as a monkey, memes referencing lynching him, and the whole birther movement ... all of that was simply because he was a Democrat?

Nope, there are racist in this country, we all know this. I just personally didn't know one.

[Wade Mulroy]

Originally Posted by techtre2003

To me the difference would be even if you don't agree or support something you accept it for what it is and not judge. I think those types of things can be discussed and argued if all parties involved agree to it but I don't think dissenting opinions should be thrown out at others unsolicited.

Thanks, I agree to an extent but want to play devil’s advocate to elaborate on this a bit more.

Fictional scenario:

Let’s say Group A has group ideals that 95% benefit society, but also hold to a belief that members in Group B should be physically harmed or imprisoned because of an uncontrollable physical characteristic given at birth.

As a member of neither group, if I don’t agree with the negative 5% of Group A’s ideals and want to take action to support the well-being of Group B, does that make me phobic towards Group A? For me to not be considered phobic, do I have to take the position of, “well, I don’t like what Group A is doing to Group B, but who am I to judge?”

[coachnip13]

Originally Posted by Jgil316

Small sample - I agree with you, however - that is the pool of positives I pulled from - And it tells a story: (there were 3 more but 2 were candidates and one person in nether party so I didn't pull them in. If I did, it would be 1 more for R, 1 more for D and 1 neither)

The data (even though small) shows the party who has had contempt for masks had a 2.4 times higher infection rate than the party who embraced masks (so far)

And since the sample size is too small to mean anything, the 2.4 also doesn't mean anything. Having "contempt for masks" has literally nothing to do with those specific 16 people, since you don't even know how any single one of them caught it.