DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Trump says he opposes mail-in voting for November

No, I'm not making up lies. You are going on incomplete information. We do not know how many were infected and are asymptomatic. Many of the elderly that have died have underlying conditions. They didn't nessesarily die of the virus itself, but of other complications. A good case of the flu, bronchitis, or pneumonia would have done the same. There is no herd immunity. A second wave will be far less fatal, and a third would be an annoyance.

BTW, I used to play high stakes poker. I'd eat you for lunch.

I hadn't read that story yet. As a person has to ask for absentee ballots in most states, I'm sure there's still an illegality sending them by fiat.

So once again actual scientific evidence means nothing because it doesn't say what you want it to.

It's a great way to never lose an argument I guess. Make claims that are easily disproven and then dispute all the evidence because it doesn't fit in your story.

Nobody else actually believe that kind of BS but as long as it makes you feel better.....

98 is the average in the US. I'm not sure I'd want to deal with a country of ticked off people. It would remind me too much of school when I kept screwing up the bell curve.

So the virus is over, and everyone's been tested? The evidence is not complete. You should cheer up though. After the final tally, the mortality rate could 3%.

According to you, the reason it is done in Oregon is because people voted for it. You claim that's what makes it legal. Well here's what they did in Michigan



So Michigan voters did approve that any voter can use an absentee ballot with no excuse to stop them.

Then let's look at your assertion that sending out the application is illegal.



Yet Trump has never said a word about it. If you would actually read the article you will find that even the RNC chair has no problem with this.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michigan-vote-by-mail-registered-voters-absentee-ballot-applications/

Erik, maybe you missed this, but nothing illegal was done. These were absentee ballot applications, not absentee ballots.

Nobody is happy about the mortality rate. Some of us are just sick of people trying to downplay the virus for their own self interest.

#factsdontmatter

Oh - and it doesn't matter how old I am and what conditions I have. It matters who I am around and my 'network' and my wife's and my kids ... and while we are all 'socially distancing' there is still risk especially with Kids.

Some people think individual freedoms include risking everyone you come in contact with. Go figure.

Funny. I never saw any facts about how many in how many months from pitt. And I meant 1967.

It's not the right comparison anyway. The correct comparison would be the Spanish flu. This was the start of global travel. It was also the start of quarenteen restrictions disappearing. That virus was new to most of the world, so there was no herd immunity. It killed around 5% of the global population.

So if the government decided we should all be locked in our homes, you'd be OK with that?

Sorry, but I'm smart enough to avoid crowds, wear a mask, and wash my hands often without being told to do it. If you need that type of help in your daily life, that's on you.

I don't need it but obviously you haven't been paying attention to how many people do. You act like everyone in our society is responsible. It doesn't work like that and since our society isn't even smart enough to reopen the country based on the CDC guidelines your argument has failed. There is no common sense nor patience involved. And all people do is make excuses for it.

No, my argument is the same it's always been. Protect yourself. The CDC guidelines are a joke. Most restaurants will go out of business with 25 to 50% occupancy. Most businesses too. Just like every other business, they've already figured out where their profit margin is, which is why they have the staff they have in the space they have. When the government sets those margins, the business will lose.

For example, the NFL has already estimated they will lose $5bil with no one in the stands. The question for them is if the can afford that or not. The question for you is if you go to a game or not. The question should not be for government to shut them down or not.

So, if I understand this correctly, you want OTHERS (grocery store workers) to put themselves at risk, so you aren't?

Honest question: How does that work? In Ohio, they need to take your photo. You have to pass a vision test in the bmv also. How does TN do that, or DO they?


Side note: I have a nephew that turned 16 just a few days after all bmv's were closed. Poor guy still can't get his license.

May 26th they open back up. Tell him to get in line early!

Grocery store workers, warehouse workers, delivery workers, customer service workers that can't work from home, mechanics that service delivery trucks, long haul truckers, etc.

In Colorado if you renew online they just reuse the current license picture. 65 and older can't renew online as a vision test is required.

Thanks. In Ohio, you have to pass a vision test every 4 years. License is only valid for 4 years, unless you are a minor. Get your license at 16, it's valid for 5 years - when you turn 21. Reason for that is to make it easier to card people. A minor's picture/license looks completely different.

No you CANT renew your drivers license online in OHIO look it up.

I'm fairly certain, in fact SURE, I never said you could.

I was asking how other states did it, what with a vision test, etc.

I never said that and I never implied that.

I was talking about not needing to vote in person - and Erik decided a good analogy or comparison was me and my grocery shopping habits. No ... you don't get to turn this around as if I am asking and expecting others to do something. I merely related my shopping experience.

I didn't turn it around. You explained your shopping. You expect others to be there to serve you, at their possible expense/peril.

Not at all.

I explained that... I never said I expected others to put themselves at risk. I never implied that I expect others to do that.

But thanks for trying.

In addition to which - this is a discussion about elections and what people do or do not need to expose themselves to in order to vote.

Trying to flip this onto what me or others do for shopping is .... not relevant.

Me telling you how I currently get groceries .... also not relveant.

Me telling you how I currently get groceries .... not telling you or anyone else what I expect of them to do on my behalf.

Any other deflections you and Erik want to throw out there? Any more claims how CV-19 is nearly the same thing as regular flu? Any more false propaganda about how wide spread voter fraud is?

From a purely theoretical and statistical perspective ... if "only" 50% of the voters were mandated to vote in person or not vote at all, and assuming they do actually vote. That's about 65 million people.

Even with everyone using PPE and taking great care, and assuming even the dim witted morons that still think this is a hoax also follow suit .... how many people are likely to contract CV-19 that otherwise wouldn't have?

3% - 2% - 1% ? 0.5%

The reality is that it will be IMPOSSIBLE not to create more spread. You can't force people into such concentrated numbers into such confined areas without there being some spread somewhere.

Being conservative - let's say the number is 0.25% .... 1/4 of 1% .... And we were already conservative by using/counting 50% of the voters. That's an additional 162,500 people with CV-19. Using another conservative mortality rate of 2% .... that'd be 3250 US citizens died - needlessly. To put that in perspective ... that would be more than the number of deaths than 911.

I'm sure someone can say far fewer will get infected as a result. Some could argue more will get infected ... and then we could talk about the multiplier effect of those that do get infected - how many are subsequently infected from those cases .... Bottom line is that it'll mean deaths.

Not a deflection at all, but I'm not surprised you still don't get it. I would say you're probably to be less exposed voting than grocery shopping. You will definitely touch less items. You libs are pushing it as one of those most dangerous things you can do.

You could use the recent Wisconsin primaries as an example. Over 400000 people, with 67 contracting the virus later. Of those 67, none of them could confirm that they didn't get the virus elsewhere. That adds up .0167%.

Sorry ARCH I was answering the pit guy

You just provide your current information online and they use your old picture. I'm not even sure if you can renew it online if your address has changed. You may have to go in and confirm your new address if that is the case.

All of my information was the same and they used my current drivers license picture and sent me a new drivers license good for eight years.

https://apps.tn.gov/tndlr/kiosk/

Damn - I thought we were in short supply of testing. Apparently WI tested 400,000 ?

I'd stake a small fortune that more than 67 people contracted the virus through those primaries. But we can't prove it because ... there is not enough testing. smh.

A self fulfilling prophecy: Don't test and then show how few people have CV-19 .... sounds like Trump in February/March.

Another reading deficiency, huh? Out of the 416000 people that voted in person, only 67 of those wound up with the virus. Do yourself a favor and go read. If you'd stake a small fortune against that, I really want to play you poker. You seem like an easy mark.

Man I have met obtuse people but you really do take the crown.

My reading is fine.

Your standard response to ignore my put down to your "debate" is to say I don't understand. Clearly it is YOU that can't debate or can't understand. Enough already.

"Out of the 416000 people that voted in person, only 67 of those wound up with the virus."

And as I pointed out .... there is not enough testing to know who has or does not have the virus from those votes. THERE IS NOT ENOUGH TESTING.

Try to come up with a better "you don't understand" response which is what you keep using when I crush you argument.

And - just be really stupid and pretend that only 67 people got CV-19 out of the 400,000 that voted.

Based on 2% mortality - that means someone died who didn't need to. Just so they could vote. And it doesn't matter if CV-19 is more or less dangerous than crossing the road, juggling knives or driving a car .... it's somebody whose death (and likely more than 1) that is/was needless .... because mass voter fraud is a Alt Right MYTH. Thanks

Some one who died didn't need to? I'd like to see you prove that one. Just a quick question for you. If someone has a heart condition, finds out they have the virus, and has a sudden heart attack on hearing the news, did the virus kill them? You act like you can predict death.

BTW, the numbers I used were from a reuters article. The last I checked, they weren't a republican news organization.

Are you ever going to drive again? We know that's not 100% safe.

Wow. Grocery shopping, heart conditions, driving, fortune telling?

Anything and everything but the subject.

Pffft. Weak. I guess you know you lost the 'debate' and the deflections are just going to keep coming. Next you'll be asking if a tree falls in the wood questions!

I forgot ... Reuters wrote the article huh? Magic. Are they now testing people too? Did they test all 400,000 voters? I guess that must be your point right? Because I made no reference to who wrote the article, I mentioned a lack of testing and a lack of accurate data.

Testing, testing, testing. I don't know whether I should mock you, laugh at you, or just feel sorry for you. I figure that you're one of those people that scream "science" at others, without understanding the science yourself.

These tests are basically useless for everyone except the researchers who will write reports when the pandemic is over. This mostly has to do with the 3 week average incubation of the virus.

There are two types of tests that are used. The nucleid acid amplification test (swab), and the antibody test (blood).

If a person is infected, but is asymptomatic, the swab test is more likely to return a false negative. The best time to collect this sample is right before the onset of symptoms. It is also a difficult sample to collect, as it's best to get it from the soft palete at the back of the nose. If the sample is collected incorrectly, or too early before the onset of symptoms, or too long after symptoms are waning, you'll get a false negative.

The blood test also tends to throw false negatives. Once again, if a person is asymptomatic or has a mild infection, they will not have enough detectable antibodies. The antibodies also fade over time. As the antibodies fade over time, it's also possible to be reinfected. This also renders the testing useless to the general public.

I would once again suggest more reading and research on your part. You appear to have the simple newsmans view of testing on this virus.

Oh look, can't debate the point so he comes up with a straw man argument about nothing previously on the discussion. You forgot to throw in something about reading skills ... as well as didn't address another of my points. The list of alternative discussions and deflections is getting wayyyyyy long.