Joe Biden beats Donald Trump, officially making Trump a one-term twice impeached, twice popular-vote losing president

[osxmatt]

5 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

Bill Mitchell and Charlie Kirk are two of the dumbest motherfuckers alive.

 

I follow Charlie Kirk on Twitter (because I hate myself) and he must have a massive bot following because like 99% of his tweets are absolute garbage with 248 comments, 212k retweets, 518k likes.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

9 minutes ago, osxmatt said:

 

I follow Charlie Kirk on Twitter (because I hate myself) and he must have a massive bot following because like 99% of his tweets are absolute garbage with 248 comments, 212k retweets, 518k likes.

You have to assume every right wing grifter like him, who survives off the teat of billionaire astroturfing and disinformation campaigns, helps get boosted by a bot army.

[chakoo]

1 hour ago, PaladinSolo said:

Whenever you think you're dumb, just go on twitter and find some GOP ghoul and they're sure to make you feel like you're a genius. 

 

 

I love this response

 

 

[skillzdadirecta]

1 hour ago, thewhyteboar said:

If old people wind up ditching Trump cause of the virus, then he is toast.

Well Republicans HAVE offered them up as sacrifices to the almighty economy so...

[CitizenVectron]

Interestingly, white people are the most concerned about Biden being white:

 

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

44 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

Interestingly, white people are the most concerned about Biden being white:

 

 

Younger people more concerned about this as well.

 

This is a complete guess, but older folks/POC probably see another white man running as just "business as usual"

[SaysWho?]

1 hour ago, CitizenVectron said:

Interestingly, white people are the most concerned about Biden being white:

 

 

 

Please tell me ResetEra is discussing this poll.

[PaladinSolo]

The poll is asking about a white man in his 70s, be more interesting if they asked both questions separately.  Like i'm pretty sure you'll find less people are worried about it being a white man, than it being a man in his late 70s.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

6 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

The poll is asking about a white man in his 70s, be more interesting if they asked both questions separately.  Like i'm pretty sure you'll find less people are worried about it being a white man, than it being a man in his late 70s.

Also there's now a very specific white man in his 70's that will come to mind when the question is asked.

[Chairslinger]

2 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

The poll is asking about a white man in his 70s, be more interesting if they asked both questions separately.  Like i'm pretty sure you'll find less people are worried about it being a white man, than it being a man in his late 70s.

 

 

That was my thinking, as well.

 

I have no problem with him being a white man, but I would have a hard time deciding on yes or no for that question because I am very concerned Joe drops dead after the convention and we lose a very winnable election because the ensuing chaos makes it impossible to coalesce around a candidate.

[skillzdadirecta]

[thewhyteboar]

 

Good. Biden seems like he can be pushed to better positions. Keep pushing!

[mclumber1]

I'm not sure voters will be hungry to implement soul crushing taxes and hugely restrictive environmental laws in the wake of a pandemic that just killed 100,000 people.   Just saying.  

[SaysWho?]

1 hour ago, thewhyteboar said:

 

Good. Biden seems like he can be pushed to better positions. Keep pushing!

 

He needs to shift on marijuana as well.

 

3 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

I'm not sure voters will be hungry to implement soul crushing taxes and hugely restrictive environmental laws in the wake of a pandemic that just killed 100,000 people.   Just saying.  

 

If they don't mind the extremely warm waters now that will likely lead to a very active season again and some powerful hurricanes that'll kill more people and hurt the economy even more, sure. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

23 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

I'm not sure voters will be hungry to implement soul crushing taxes and hugely restrictive environmental laws in the wake of a pandemic that just killed 100,000 people.   Just saying.  

All the money is made up, we can spend trillions on wall street bailouts so we can have a few crumbs to start to remove our dependence from fossil fuels

[Joe]

39 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

I'm not sure voters will be hungry to implement soul crushing taxes and hugely restrictive environmental laws in the wake of a pandemic that just killed 100,000 people.   Just saying.  

 

100,000 people? In the US?

[CitizenVectron]

7 minutes ago, Jose said:

 

100,000 people? In the US?

 

It's most likely already killed more than that in the US. The official death count is 45,000 for America, but based on the under-reporting found in other places (by as much as 2-3x) the actual count is likely 100,000 to 150,000. Even without that, the daily (reported) death toll is 2,800, and while that is likely peaking right now (or within the next week or two), it is going to take a month or two for it to come down...assuming new cases don't explode.

 

Realistically the first wave will probably have 100,000+ reported deaths and 250,000+ actual deaths. And then there will be a second wave, maybe third, etc.

[mclumber1]

16 minutes ago, Jose said:

 

100,000 people? In the US?

 

By election time?  I have no doubt. 

[Joe]

1 minute ago, mclumber1 said:

 

By election time?  I have no doubt. 

 

We shall see. Not saying it's impossible, but I would not bet on it.

[mclumber1]

3 minutes ago, Jose said:

 

We shall see. Not saying it's impossible, but I would not bet on it.

 

Ok Donald

[Joe]

1 minute ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Ok Donald

 

The epicenter of the outbreak, the Tri-State area, has either plateaud or started to decline in cases reported and more importantly, in percentage of positive cases. Expecting us to get to 100k in reported deaths by November is pretty much a doomsday scenario.

[CitizenVectron]

11 minutes ago, Jose said:

 

The epicenter of the outbreak, the Tri-State area, has either plateaud or started to decline in cases reported and more importantly, in percentage of positive cases. Expecting us to get to 100k in reported deaths by November is pretty much a doomsday scenario.

 

I would bet $100 that the US already has passed 100,000 deaths and simply hasn't had the capacity to test it. That's not a slam on the US, it's been the case everywhere. People die and it's suspected to be the virus, but there is no point in testing due to limited availability, so it's just an excess death.

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

It's most likely already killed more than that in the US. The official death count is 45,000 for America, but based on the under-reporting found in other places (by as much as 2-3x) the actual count is likely 100,000 to 150,000. 

This is a ridiculous claim to make at this point.

[mclumber1]

3 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

I would bet $100 that the US already has passed 100,000 deaths and simply hasn't had the capacity to test it. That's not a slam on the US, it's been the case everywhere. People die and it's suspected to be the virus, but there is no point in testing due to limited availability, so it's just an excess death.

 

Testing is huge factor here.  My wife seems to be doing better, and thankfully never had to be admitted to the hospital, but she likely has Coronavirus, but because she doesn't meet the requirements (over 60 years old or living in a group home) they won't give her a test. 

[mclumber1]

1 minute ago, sblfilms said:

This is a ridiculous claim to make at this point.

 

Is it?  Last I read, we've had a large increase in excess deaths year over year, and not all of them are accounted for as coronavirus related. 

[CitizenVectron]

3 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

This is a ridiculous claim to make at this point.

 

I don't think so, unless somehow the US is doing a much better job at testing the people who have it compared to the rest of the world. The best way (currently) to judge the impact of the disease is to look at the overall deaths in an area (versus normal, expected deaths), not the confirmed deaths. Everywhere this is being done, the true impact is much higher than reported. I mean, maybe the US somehow has tested 100% of the people who have died...but I doubt that considering the lack of testing compared to many other places.

[Guest]

Yes, it’s a ridiculous claim to make at this point. It could be true, but it’s not based in any rigorous research, just hunches on incomplete information.

[Joe]

11 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

I would bet $100 that the US already has passed 100,000 deaths and simply hasn't had the capacity to test it. That's not a slam on the US, it's been the case everywhere. People die and it's suspected to be the virus, but there is no point in testing due to limited availability, so it's just an excess death.

 

Even if I accept this baseless premise, how are actual deaths going to affect voters choices in November? 

[CitizenVectron]

1 minute ago, Jose said:

 

Even if I accept this baseless premise, how are actual deaths going to affect voters choices in November? 

 

I don't disagree with you on that! People will vote the way they were going to vote. The only group that could be swinged (and actually looks like it has a bit) are 65+ voters worried about their own health. A poll a few days ago showed they have swung to Biden compared to 2016.

[Joe]

Just now, CitizenVectron said:

 

I don't disagree with you on that! People will vote the way they were going to vote. The only group that could be swinged (and actually looks like it has a bit) are 65+ voters worried about their own health. A poll a few days ago showed they have swung to Biden compared to 2016.

 

Ah, ok. I was responding to mclumber saying we will have 100,000 reported deaths by November and that it will affect votes. We won't be near that number.

[mclumber1]

1 minute ago, Jose said:

 

Ah, ok. I was responding to mclumber saying we will have 100,000 reported deaths by November and that it will affect votes. We won't be near that number.

 

I know we are way off topic.  My only point was that no one is going to want to swallow that bitter pill of the Green New Deal if it means higher taxes on everyone and a decreased standard of living,  along with being in a covid-19 induced depression and double digit unemployment. 

[Joe]

7 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Yes, it’s a ridiculous claim to make at this point. It could be true, but it’s not based in any rigorous research, just hunches on incomplete information.

 

It's most definitely not true. New York counts probable deaths and they represent nearly 50% of all COVID deaths. It's literally impossible for us to be anywhere near 150,000 actual deaths. Bullshit fear-mongering.

[PaladinSolo]

The US under count is definitely real, and could be huge, but its going to take some time to sift through it all, this is a week old.  Remember when China added 50% more deaths to Wuhan?  Could certainly happen here.

 

 

[mclumber1]

Just now, PaladinSolo said:

The US under count is definitely real, and could be huge, but its going to take some time to sift through it all, this is a week old.

 

 

 

Even if we determine those excess deaths are not directly related to coronavirus, they may still be:. If a person can't get treated for a run of the mill heart attack and subsequently dies because the hospital is overrun with coronavirus patients,  that's a death that should be counted towards the overall statistic.

 

Something like half of all civil war deaths were due to infections and disease, yet we still count them as part of the 600,000 who died in the war.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

1 hour ago, mclumber1 said:

 

I know we are way off topic.  My only point was that no one is going to want to swallow that bitter pill of the Green New Deal if it means higher taxes on everyone and a decreased standard of living,  along with being in a covid-19 induced depression and double digit unemployment. 

Good thing there gnd is a jobs program not a taxation program like a carbon tax. Instead of taxing fossil fuels to raise their costs, we spend $$ to make renewable and zero GHG energy cheaper.