Hodad

If you mean to say that the organization is staffed by humans and humans are inherently political, it that any organization led by political appointees is inherently political, that's reasonable. https://www.npr.org/2018/01/26/580677742/the-massive-case-of-collective-amnesia-the-fbi-has-been-political-from-the-start Things happen that are sometimes inconvenient to one political party or the other. Comey spiked the Clinton campaign with nonsense right at the finish line, but he also didn't try to put her in jail over the silly email stuff. It's political, but it's not the damn KGB. That's Republican victim complex, "deep state" Q conspiracy nonsense.

All eyes will be on any of her possible attempts to cheat. It's like going to a David Blane magic demonstration. You know he's going to try something and you're watching him like a hawk, but begosh and begora, he does it anyway. What Mike Dense, er Pence orchestrated was to put us only one triggering event away from possible civil war. Normally, iinm, it takes two or more elections with instances of voter fraud before partisans can "sell" others on the idea that they will never be able to trust the system to assure a fair election unless the activists take things into their own hands. By Pence failing to do a 9 day quick review of the nationwide election system, future activists (from any of three motivations or more) can say that the fraudulent 2020 results were the first of the two required compromised election events. Pence was stupid. He should have followed the advice of the 100 nationwide lawmakers who united to formally request Pence take the time to review the system before giving the 2020 election results to Speaker Pelosi and thus certifying to her and the people of this country, that the results are honest and accurate. And everyone knows there was reasonable doubt. And anyone who knows how important an honest, transparent, healthy and well run election system is to our Republic would tell you that no expense should be spared or effort not taken to dispel ANY DOUBTS about the system's integrity which might be used to rig a one trigger any future existential threats. That's one possibility. Another is that Pence wasn't dense. Pence was possibly made an offer he couldn't refuse. So, he possibly sold Trump down the road, and in the case that this is true, would bear the responsibility for inflicting the greatest potential damage to this country since the first shot was fired at Ft. Sumter. And if you consider Trump's attitude toward Pence since J6, I think it is consistent with how I would react if I knew Pence HAD to deliver the bogus results to Pelosi or something very bad would have happened. I would wish he could have resisted that pressure. But I would know he only did what he had to do. That's the attitude I detect when I see him speak of Pence. This is ridiculous. After 6 months of partisan recounts, "cyber ninjas," coercion of local officials and 60 court cases (laughed out of court) there was not a shed of evidence of anything except Trump's lust for power and his disdain for American democracy. No, there was not reasonable doubt, and no, Mike Pence wasn't going to magically do more in 9 days-- and none of that is relevant because the election was already certified and delivered. Pence did the ONLY thing that he could legally do: his job. The only scheme to steal the election was Trump's play with the Eastman mem and literal "fake electors." He tried to steal it right in front of you, on the record, and you still worship him. It's lunacy. You cannot stand with Trump and with the constitution at the same time. He is anathema.

Okay, let's all just agree that there definitely wasn't rain as Trump addressed "the largest inauguration crowd" in history. I think the question then becomes how many and who among Trump's inner circle conspired with the "fake news" "lamestream" media to make him look bad? And why? And how deep does the conspiracy go? One of the most surprising conspirators is Melania Trump herself. Here she is (probably driven to revenge by Don's philandering) holding up her umbrella while her husband speaks. Oh, look, and then little Baron ducks in to pretend like he's seeking cover. Et tu, Brute? And look, they even spritzed the umbrella to complete the effect. Devious! And then, perhaps most devious of all, Franklin Graham invokes God himself conspire to provide cover for the "fake rain" media when he takes the stage after Trump and says: "Mr. President, in the Bible, rain is a sign of God's blessing. And it started to rain, Mr. President, when you came to the platform, and it's my prayer that God will bless you, your family, your administration, and may He bless America." I mean, Franklin's audacity takes the cake. Did he outright lie to that crowd of people with ponchos and umbrellas, and just to feed the "enemy of America" media a future story? Who got to him?!? This is big farking conspiracy. We should call it watergate. Let's investigate. Just asking questions. Inquiring minds want to know!

Buy a damn mirror. This thread is literally just clowns like you throwing baseless shit at the FBI. Did the FBI (who is now like the KGB?) spirit Meek away to a secret black site prison? Inquiring minds want to know. But but but there were unmarked cars!! (Which is what FBI agents drive.) Oh, and the FBI super secretly confirmed that they were there when asked. Such an amazing secret abduction. Jeebus.

The article was interesting enough, but the thread has (predictably) gone off the rails into fantasyland. It seems the not-so-subtle implication now is that the FBI is"disappearing" notable journalists by showing up for a daytime raid with police and sirens and lights for all the world to see. I know that's how I would conduct all my super secret illegal ops. -- Especially for journalists, whose colleagues definitely won't ask questions. ? He's not missing or vanished. He's obviously in touch with his lawyer, who commented on the damn story. Meek knows what was seized and he knows that whatever it is is a big problem and has chosen to make himself scarce. Maybe it's just classified docs. Maybe it comes with a side of kiddie pics or some other extracurricular. Who knows. -- Maybe he's staying with family in the countryside, or maybe he's sipping top shelf vodka with Edward Snowden at Putin's summer house. Who knows? There are plenty of questions about what Meek was up to and what he's doing now, but none of them implicate the FBI in any negative way. That's just fantasy.

And you wonder why the rest of the world thinks Republicans are a-holes? lol For the record, Republicans aren't currently very popular in America either.

Republicans have been in a sad and ugly place for the last 12 years or so, and it lead to Trump and Trumpism. Finding Trump and the current Republican party revolting is not the same as hating America or Americans. Friends should tell each other when the spot a bit of mustard on the other's face. And for 4 ugly years our entire heads were covered in mustard. And it's not just Canada. That's the sentiment with allies around the world.

They say don't beat a dead horse, but a dead horse doesn't go around discouraging people from getting vaccinated. ?‍♀️

The stupidest thing I've done is hold out hope you might understand. The difference in the number is not a rate. It doesn't speak in any way to vaccine efficacy. How do you not get this? It's basic, basic, basic. Again, if 100% of people were vaccinated 100% of the deaths would be among the vaccinated. If you can't grasp that basic fact there is no hope for you. Serious question: Do you know the meaning of the word "cumulative"? The fact that you are still, stubbornly and stupidly, trying to wring meaning from the total number of deaths is a f*cking monument to obstinance. If that count goes on for another few years the number of vaccinated deaths will vastly outnumber the unvaxxed deaths. An idiot would look at that and think the vaccines were poison! The rest of us know those numbers are useless in terms of examining efficacy. Because. You. Should. Be. Looking. At. Rates. Dunning and Kruger should do a case study on you. I don't know that I've met anyone whose confidence is more inversely correlated with competence. Coupled with extreme rudeness, it's really a spectacular implosion. The rates are right here: Open your damn eyes and look at them. The death rates among the unvaccinated are many times higher than among the vaccinated. A child- not even a particularly bright child -could look at the chart I posted above and understand that simple fact. The vaccines are effective. Here is the original source for the death count chart you posted (rightmost box -identical numbers). Can you guess what it says in the notes? (Spoiler: It's exactly what I've been telling you for several days.) "Most people in Canada have been vaccinated. Because they’re a larger group, there will naturally be more cases among vaccinated people than among unvaccinated people. However, despite their higher case counts, vaccinated people are less likely to get very sick or die." ... And (same page) for current efficacy specifically regarding outcomes: "People who were diagnosed with COVID-19 after completing their primary vaccine series were significantly less likely to be hospitalized or to die, particularly if they received an additional dose(s). Between August 1, 2022 and August 28, 2022, unvaccinated cases were 5 times more likely to be hospitalized and 7 times more likely to die from their illness, compared to cases with a completed primary vaccine series. During the same 4-week period, unvaccinated cases were 7 times more likely to be hospitalized and 8 times more likely to die from their illness, compared to cases with a completed primary vaccine series and 1 or more additional doses (see data notes in Technical notes and definitions section)." ^^It's the notes from the actual stats you provided. I've told you all along that you don't understand them and are misusing them. Couldn't be more open and shut. Still, I expect you're not honorable enough to admit you were wrong and are likely to go on spreading FUD, killing people with vaccine disinformation.

If you want to reframe, and clean up that's fine. I'll consider some of your sillier claims settled. No, vaccines needn't approach 100% efficacy to meet some threshold to be considered a vaccine--nor 90%, nor 80% etc. Yes, the flu vaccine is a vaccine. Settled. No, statistical models are not "a stat." But those models certainly are part statistics. if you are unaware, statistics goes far beyond counting what has already happened. Much of the value is derived from predicting alternative or future outcomes based on past data, which is exactly what the Lancet article offered you. You are calling an entire branch of statistics "propaganda" which is asinine. I have explained this so many times- and offered other sources to explain it as well- that I am not hopeful, but here goes... A. The charts you presented DO NOT show the percentage of deaths among the vaxxed and unvaxxed in real time B. The charts you provided capture raw numbers (total deaths) a single point in time--and they are cumulative to boot. They are not rates. C. They are academic trivia. You can infer virtually nothing about vaccine efficacy from those numbers. Example: Stipulating an effective vaccine Checkpoint 1: If you looked at those numbers on day 1 of the vaccination campaign, when nearly 100% of the population was unvaxxed nearly 100% of the deaths would be among the unvaccinated. A person engaging in your fallacious reasoning would determine that the vaccines were almost 100% effective. Checkpoint 2: Setting aside age and other variables, if you looked at those numbers on day 90 of the vaccination campaign when 50% of the population was vaxxed the death count would likely skew heavily toward the unvaccinated. A person engaging in your fallacious reasoning would determine that the vaccines were still very effective. Checkpoint 3: And if you looked at the numbers on, say, day 180 when 90% of the population were vaxxed, deaths would likely still skew toward the unvaxxed, but the numbers would be closer. A person engaging in your fallacious reasoning would determine that the vaccines were only somewhat effective. Checkpoint 4: Fast forward 600 days later. 90% of the population has been vaccinated for 2+ years. By raw number, most of the deaths in the last 2 years have been among the vaccinated (because almost everyone is vaccinated) and when you look at the cumulative totals you'll see, by number, a lot more deaths among the vaccinated. A person engaging in your fallacious reasoning would determine that the vaccines had a negative effect, and made one more likely to die. So did the vaccine efficacy change between these checkpoints? Nope. The composition of the population, vaxxed vs unvaxxed changed. And time passed allowing deaths to accumulate in both categories. But a person using your "methodology" would have drawn very different conclusions about efficacy at each point in time. Because it's fallacious reasoning. If you actually want to evaluate the efficacy of the vaccine you would want rates for both variables, not raw numbers. For example, compare: COVID deaths per 100K unvaccinated COVID deaths per 100K vaccinated Which you can look up in many different places--once you understand the stats you provided and why they don't mean what you think they mean. Example The unvaccinated are many times more likely to die of COVID than the vaccinated. The vaccines are effective.

Yes, they are inherently regressive. I'm curious why you think Democrats, of all people, would support a VAT? Why would democrats support a new tax that lands squarely on the constituency they are courting, poor and middle-class families, students, the elderly, etc?

I don't think there is any inherent benefit, and there definitely isn't an appetite here for this approach. Americans are whiny about taxes in general, but doubly so about a tax that lands disproportionately on the poor and middle classes, who make up the bulk of the electorate. Most Americans believe in a progressive tax system, but I'll readily acknowledge that we've f*cked it up with cuts and exemptions for the wealthy. Politicians know where their bread is buttered when it comes to fundraising. If you have enough money you can avoid taxation almost altogether. That's a big problem. And frankly that's the problem we should be fixing rather than moving to a system that is inherently regressive and trying to counteract that with more carveouts and rebates and bureaucracy. Most often when we talk about tax reform in this country we talk about a simplified system in which all the elaborate deductions and sheltering go away and people pay something resembling their assigned rate.

WestCanMan, meet WestCan Man: "I said "basically 100%", which is to say that the polio vaccine isn't 100% effective, but it's very close to it." It was false the first time you said it. Repeating it reflects an inability to learn. Sometimes ego>IQ. There is no standard of efficacy to define a vaccine approaching anywhere close to 100%. See past lists of well known vaccines not approaching that mark. Everything right, except you tried to pass of raw numbers as rates, you don't understand how vaccines work, you made an absurd claim about vaccine definition, and (my personal favorite) you claim the flu vaccine is not a vaccine. And these are just the highlights. lol No a glass of milk cannot be called a vaccine. This is another doozy of a bullshit claim. Do you even blush when lying like that? Meanwhile... the fact that you're using supermarket marketing to try to redefine "vaccine" is comically on par for you. Nevertheless, let us indulge because it's just so damn fun watching you drown. Save on Foods: "Getting the vaccine helps protect yourself, as well as those around you who may be vulnerable and at risk of severe complications from the flu." Shoppers Drug Mart: "The type of influenza viruses that cause the flu tend to change year to year, requiring a new vaccine annually." Please, please, let's do some more. lol Yes! This is exactly the fallacy you proffered as proof of vaccine inefficacy, that the raw numbers of deaths among vaccinated people being near the number of deaths among the unvaccinated showed that the vaccine was ineffective. You failed to account for the fact that 90%ish of the population is vaccinated. It's a textbook case. Scientific American (already provided): "Taken at face value, these numbers may appear to indicate that vaccination does not make that much of a difference. But this perception is an example of a phenomenon known as the base rate fallacy. One also has to consider the denominator of the fraction—that is, the sizes of the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. With shots widely available to almost all age groups, the majority of the U.S. population has been vaccinated. So even if only a small fraction of vaccinated people who get COVID die from it, the more people who are vaccinated, the more likely they are to make up a portion of the dead." The Lancet: "In the context of COVID-19 vaccines, the base-rate fallacy is often described as the illusion that vaccines are ineffective because, in highly vaccinated populations, the majority of COVID-19 cases occur among vaccinated people." Dear Pandemic: "The base rate fallacy is a type of logical fallacy that occurs when people try to estimate the chance of something happening based only on specific examples in front of them, ignoring the background levels of those events in the population." Here is a handy illustration if you don't understand the words alone. Flowing Data You don't have to believe me. The world is full of information. Again, go read the articles and stop embarrassing yourself. If you think Black Americans regret the BLM movement and would like to rewind time to before that work was done you know as much about Black Americans as you do about vaccines. Aw, bless your heart. Watching you flail around here, I think it's pretty clear you couldn't get over my head with a stepladder and stilts.❤️

Whaaat? Stop pretending that there is any meaningful difference when you say "basically" 100% efficacy qualifies something as a vaccine. It's a bog-stupid statement and the world is full of vaccines of varying efficacy. It's a standard you pulled straight out of your ass. Yes, some people are slow learners and I won't hold it against you that you need a lot of repitition. No, any person with knowledge of vaccines would not share your expectation. Read the damn article and stop wasting everyone's time with this nonsense. OFFS, are you really, seriously going to pretend that the flu vaccine is not called the flu vaccine in Canada. (A) It's common knowledge. (B) I already linked you to the government site and quoted, and (C) It literally says flu vaccine on your own goddamn link. It's like you went up to try for a dunk and just smashed your face into the rim instead. Embarrassing. You're not fooling anyone. Just be wrong, learn and move on. You did indeed post stats that you don't understand. And I can explain to you, and I can give you articles that explain, but, alas, I can't understand it for you. You continue to miss the point of the exercise, and I certainly disagree with your conclusion. Again, very cute. You have a Trumpian misunderstanding of your own capabilities. I don't think anyone is intimidated by ignorant internet bluster. And frankly, the more you reply the more it undermines your bizarre worldview. Please, keep going. Tell me more about how the "flu shot" isn't a flu vaccine in Canada. I especially enjoyed that part. Is it because of the exchange rate? The metric system? Inquiring minds want to know! You are entertaining. I'll give you that.

Eh, whether you pay them to open their mouths or close them, it's still paying for sex. I actually think that's how it's marketed in some circles, you don't pay for the encounter, you pay for the discretion.

No sense quibbling over a few percent, if you think that vaccines must be anywhere close to 100% effective to be called a vaccine you are sorely mistaken. -- And as for these numbers, you are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting these statistics. The death rate is not equivalent, or even close. This isn't showing rates. These are raw numbers. And the longer you track this statistic the more deaths will show up among the vaccinated. Because nearly everyone there is vaccinated. Surprise! Now slow down and actually think about why. In a population that is like 90% vaccinated, obviously most of the deaths will be among the vaccinated. If 100% of the population were vaccinated, 100% of the deaths would be among the vaccinated. I'm not tricking you. This is just how numbers work. Scientific American: "Taken at face value, these numbers may appear to indicate that vaccination does not make that much of a difference. But this perception is an example of a phenomenon known as the base rate fallacy. One also has to consider the denominator of the fraction—that is, the sizes of the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. With shots widely available to almost all age groups, the majority of the U.S. population has been vaccinated. So even if only a small fraction of vaccinated people who get COVID die from it, the more people who are vaccinated, the more likely they are to make up a portion of the dead." Are you just used to people not calling you on your bullshit, because this is pretty blatant? Yes, the "flu shot" is a vaccine, and yes, that's what they call it in Canada too--because that's what it is. It's not a tuque. lol 2021-2022 flu vaccine This season's flu shot will protect you against: influenza A(H1N1) influenza A(H3N2) influenza B Pssst. It's called statistical modeling. Yes, it is statistics. Believe it or not, the field of statistics is not limited to simply counting things that have happened in the past. Oy. And you are welcome to reject articles from the world's premiere medical journal, but we all know why you're choosing to do so and it has nothing to do with anyone's credibility except for yours. Again, this is a completely unacceptable perspective. No, you cannot "spot" people who don't mind being groped. You will eventually be wrong and then you'll have committed a sex crime. Get consent before you run around groping people. Jeebus. Good on you. Maybe that's one way you're different than that dirtbag Trump. You didn't disprove anything, and in fact I think you've missed the point entirely. Rioting sucks, but protesting is powerful. Why don't you ask any of those people if they would like to go back in time to before the BLM movement, or whether those growing pains were necessary and worthwhile? Again, to be clear, at no time in history has there been a better chance at fair treatment for a person playing demographic roulette. Whether you're Black or gay or a woman or Hispanic or indigenous or even a white man, you'll find a better, more equitable society today than at any point in history. Much progress still to be made, but the progress is undeniable. Aw, it's cute that you think you're anywhere near reality. Step one is to turn off whatever media you're currently mainlining, because it's rotting not just your brain, but you heart as well. If you wanna know if vaccines work, ask the medical community. If you wanna know what the definition of a vaccine is, consult with the medical community. If you wanna know how to read statistics, ask a statistician. There's a world of knowledge out there if you rely on real sources instead of getting your information pre-chewed and digested from some fringe hate outlet. Frankly, right now you're not much better off than the religious folks who toss out all science in the name of dogma.

Your deranged nonsense is illuminating, but it's not relevant to the point. The MAGA mob assaulting out government is awful, but incidental. Trump and his inner circle literally concocted a plan to illegally derail the transfer of power to the incoming president. Read the Eastman memo. Mike Pence is a first-class lickspittle, but that was a bridge too far even for him. If he hadn't picked that moment to grow a spine I'd be typing this from the geography recently known as the United States.

Why would the "apparent age" be ancient? Look, the only way even this^^ silly explanation makes any sense is if you think all of the sciences are wrong. Like, you are literally proposing that god formed the world to look billions of years old and then dragged his finger through the faux-aged earth of North America to carve out the Grand Canyon like a kid in cake frosting, tantalizingly revealing layer after layer of his fake, old strata. I mean, holy crap, do you even realize how absurd that sounds? There's sure as shit no logic in it. No, logic does not support the idea of an all-powerful designer, let alone one who makes things look old for the lulz. There is not a shred of evidence for it. Mankind has imagined thousands of supernatural origin stories to explain the unknown, and there isn't evidence for any of them. Science doesn't have all the answers (yet) but it has a lot of them, and it is baffling that you'd throw out thousands of years of research and documentation in favor of one (of thousands) old unsupported mythology.

Are you under the misapprehension that vaccines must be 100% effective in preventing one from contracting the virus? Or 100% effective in preventing serious illness or death? That's simply false information. Case in point: the flu vaccine. Is that also not "really" a vaccine? How about mumps? Whooping cough? None of these are perfectly effective at the individual level, yet they are beneficial to the individual and even moreso to the community. All these all "fake" vaccines as well. Again, not sure where you're getting your information, but it clearly not from medical authorities. Go ask the CDC, WHO, May Clinic, or a real live doctor. Yeah, stats are pretty useful. Like these, from The Lancet Or these from The Commonwealth Fund And many more. The point again is that you are disregarding the information provided by every medical body on the planet in favor of some media-brewed heterodoxy. Why? Why ignore what an overwhelming consensus of doctors and scientists are telling you in favor of some poorly mangled stats from the right wing echo chamber? Yowza. You sound like those rapists who defend themselves by saying "Yeah, but she really wanted it!" I hope you don't walk the walk in this case, and that it's just bluster. Sexual assault is indeed very serious, and it is indeed sexual assault to grab someone's genitals without permission. Please don't do it, and please don't defend others for doing it. It's not excusable. I really have no idea what this Gish gallop is all about. Doesn't seem in any way related to my post, so skipping. I'll take it as confirmation though that you didn't practice the thought experiment. I'll give you the spoiler alert again though: at no point in time in the history of the world would you have been born into a fairer or more just situation--particularly in the United States. If you knew that you'd be born as a white male then there are times when that would have conferred even greater unfair advantage than it does now, but for literally everybody else today is better. And it is objectively more fair. And yes, I absolutely think that there's a subset of white males are lashing out against the erosion of their unfair advantage. I'm not one who finds it troubling. I can compete on my own merit just fine, thanks. I don't need a head start. Thanks, I suppose, but you're wrong in that I haven't said anything stupid or racist.

Well, the constitution could use a few updates, but yes, of course. And anyone who shares the hope of an enduring America should be opposed to Trump, the first president in history to threaten the peaceful transfer of power after losing the election. He would have happily ended the republic if he could have convinced Mike Pence to play along.

Yep.

Eh, he's a shitty person and a shittier president. Haberman is right on the money: he's a two-bit conman concerned only with his own self interest. His election is one that will baffle future historians.

Ah, okay. Well, then if you're going to persist in making up your own definitions for words perhaps you'd consider providing some kind of glossary? I'm kidding. Please don't. But do consider putting some study. Economics is a fascinating subject. I don't have any problem with people not knowing the subject, but conversation becomes pretty pointless if one isn't at least willing to learn.

88% you say? This is what is called a specious argument. It's meant to appear reasonable and to fool folks who aren't paying attention. Someone may have gotten one over on you. I suspect you're tapped into some bad media. To explain, as vaccination rates increase, obviously any outcome, good or ill, will befall the vaccinated to a higher degree. If Canada were 100% vaccinated then 100% of COVID deaths would be among the vaccinated. I think the reality is closer to 90% vaccination among adults. But at any rate that's a statistic meant to mislead. Science is certainly not a "monster" and vaccination has saved countless lives. And it is plainly and factually incorrect to claim that the COVID vaccines are not vaccines. Again, I can only assume you've tapped into some garbage media and have chosen to believe those claims over those of every medical body in the world. I'd suggest looking to authoritative sources. I gave up on the idea that politicians were meant to be role models a long time ago. And in the US our former president demeaned women, boasted about sexually assaulting women, cheated on all 3 of his wives, paid for sex with porn stars, stole from his own charity and ran a scam education program--and the religious right flocked to him in droves. So yeah, some state senator doing a goofy dance on the beach is honestly the least of my worries when it comes to moral public service. Are you familiar with the philosopher John Rawls? He advanced a theory of justice, that is very influential, the cornerstone of which is a thought experiment called the "veil of ignorance." It asks you to imagine that you will be born into the world without knowing anything of your circumstance-- your sex, your gender, your sexuality, your class, your race, your location, your religion etc. are all unknown. How then would you design a society and legal structure? I bring it up because though our world is far from perfect, it is certainly not in decline. Put yourself in that experiment and try to imagine any point in history in which you would have a better, fairer shot at a happy life. It doesn't exist. There is no point in history in which you can shake up all those random variables and be assured of a better, fairer outcome. Society is not collapsing, nor is it in decline. But there are certain privileged and entitled groups that feel pretty angry about the idea of a fairer world.

No, you never said that you dismiss science. You simply do dismiss it, post after post. Instead of looking at the facts and understanding that geologic erosion, light transmission, radioactive decay, etc. etc. all indicate that the earth and the universe it resides within are VASTLY, INCOMPREHENSIBLY older than 6000 years you turn to the magic explanation that God faked it all to look older. Because he's a bit of a rascal, I presume. Or perhaps how some people paint their furniture with a weathered look. You god is just into vintage-looking planets.