[Rama Set]

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

Per the CDC as of October 9th there were 200,499 deaths due to Covid. Your source decided that comorbidities should be excluded to support their narrative when it makes no sense. This has been explained multiple times through the pandemic across many sources.

The fact that the vast majority of people who died of COVID were dying of other things skews the results. So it can't legitimately be called the "third largest cause of death". You source did not perform any investigation of what percentage someone died because their cancer vs. COVID. Thousands of people regularly die every day, FYI. There is no experimentation or deep analysis in the article you presented. The comorbidities and advanced ages are not addressed at all. You are sharing trash.

You are just some guy on the internet vs some reporting for an extremely reputable magazine using data from public agencies. Flu deaths also include comorbidities. Cancer deaths include comorbidities. Heart disease deaths include comorbidities. This is your problem with the subject, not the professionals.

[Pete Svarrior]

Biden's a liar? Really?

Indulge me, what would you say were his worst two or three?

Tumeni, this is the last time I'm going to ask this of you - read the context of posts before replying to them.

[Tom Bishop]

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

Per the CDC as of October 9th there were 200,499 deaths due to Covid. Your source decided that comorbidities should be excluded to support their narrative when it makes no sense. This has been explained multiple times through the pandemic across many sources.

The fact that the vast majority of people who died of COVID were dying of other things skews the results. So it can't legitimately be called the "third largest cause of death". You source did not perform any investigation of what percentage someone died because their cancer vs. COVID. Thousands of people regularly die every day, FYI. There is no experimentation or deep analysis in the article you presented. The comorbidities and advanced ages are not addressed at all. You are sharing trash.

You are just some guy on the internet vs some reporting for an extremely reputable magazine using data from public agencies. Flu deaths also include comorbidities. Cancer deaths include comorbidities. Heart disease deaths include comorbidities. This is your problem with the subject, not the professionals.

Totally wrong. If someone is diagnosed with Stage Four Cancer then there is a good chance that when they die in their bed it would be primarily of their Stage Four Cancer. That much should be obvious.

If someone with Stage Four Cancer is diagnosed with COVID, which is otherwise harmless for the majority of normal healthy people who have it, then it is not clear that someone with Stage Four Cancer primarily died of COVID and not their Stage Four Cancer.

Suggesting that people with Stage Four Cancer primarily died of COVID and not their cancer needs more evidence for that assertion, as this is what you are suggesting with your baseless beliefs about comorbidities not mattering. It is quite naive to suggest that someone's Stage Four Cancer doesn't matter, and that only their COVID diagnosis matters. Any source you provide should address those kinds of factors, and this one doesn't address it at all, all while making various discrediting politically biased comments which have no place in a scientific article or paper.

[Rama Set]

Take it up with medical professionals at the CDC but really, your claims have no substance other than your personal credulity and some buzz words about the scientific American reporting on statistics being unscientific; this should t surprise anyone as statistics aren’t science.

[Rushy]

Fivethirtyeight currently predicts Trump has a 14% chance of winning versus Biden's 86% chance. Comparatively, Fivethirtyeight's final prediction during 2016 was Trump with a 29% chance of winning compared to Hillary's 71% chance. Fivethirtyeight was the only predictive outlet that used a number below 85% for Hillary's chances to win, making their model likely more realistic than others.

I personally consider their model to be heavily biased towards Biden, as they're once again using polls which oversample Democrats. Polls generally oversample Democrats because there are quite simply more Democrats in the US than there are Republicans, however Democrat turnout was abysmal in 2016. Will it be as abysmal in 2020? No one is quite sure, since the DNC skipped most of the primaries (which can be used to predict general election turnout) it's really impossible to know what Democrat turnout will look like. If Democrats bother actually voting, it's an easy win for Biden, if they vote at the same levels as they did in 2016, it's a guaranteed loss.

[Dr David Thork]

The problem for democrats is that democrats don't actually like Biden. They hate Trump, sure, but are they motivated to go and tick a box for a guy they don't like? Do they want to live with the fact they voted for the next Whitehouse disaster?


^ Democrats talking about how much they hate Biden. So if you poll saying are you a democrat or republican, that's going to give you a very different number to did you actually bother your arse to go out and vote for a guy you hate? The dems will struggle with apathy this time around. The republicans will have no such issue as they will be furious at the way the dems have behaved in opposition with impeachment, 25th amendment, threats of packing the supreme court, and will want sour-faced old cunts like Pelosi to feel some voter pain.

Trump's gonna steal this.
https://townhall.com/columnists/wayneallynroot/2020/10/11/fakepoll-alert-proof-biden-is-not-winning-n2577814

[juner]

Trump's gonna steal this.

Care to make a wager?

[stack]

All differences aside: doesn't it suck that the supposedly most powerful nation in the world gets to choose between two senile professional liars for their next leader?

Biden's a liar? Really?

Indulge me, what would you say were his worst two or three?

You only want two or three?
1) https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2007/sep/27/joe-biden/biden-way-off-on-alcohol-related-birth-defects/
2) https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/may/09/joe-biden/joe-biden-misstates-daily-deaths-united-states-can/
3) https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/aug/09/joe-biden/joe-biden-takes-donald-trumps-words-about-gang-mem/

I'm enjoying this ... indulge me
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/sep/13/joe-biden/fact-checking-biden-use-cages-during-obama-adminis/
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/feb/13/joe-biden/does-medicare-all-cost-more-entire-budget-biden-sa/
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jul/27/joe-biden/long-history-racism-us-presidency/
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jul/28/joe-biden/biden-wrong-mcdonalds-workers-cant-jump-competing-/
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/sep/04/joe-biden/joe-biden-wrong-about-how-early-he-called-invoke-d/
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/oct/06/joe-biden/biden-inflated-number-clemency-actions-obama/

Oh, and then there is this gem ...

Trump Politifact Scorecard:



Biden Politifact Scorecard:



From the Washinton Post:

President Trump has made more than 20,000 false or misleading claims
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/07/13/president-trump-has-made-more-than-20000-false-or-misleading-claims/

[Tom Bishop]

some buzz words about the scientific American reporting on statistics being unscientific; this should t surprise anyone as statistics aren’t science.

Since you have discredited your own source it appears that you have conceded the discussion.

[Tumeni]

You only want two or three?
1) https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2007/sep/27/joe-biden/biden-way-off-on-alcohol-related-birth-defects/
2) https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/may/09/joe-biden/joe-biden-misstates-daily-deaths-united-states-can/
3) https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/aug/09/joe-biden/joe-biden-takes-donald-trumps-words-about-gang-mem/

The first is merely quoting a mistaken figure, not outright lie.

The second is too; Biden quoted stats for the Americas as a whole, not the United States, and it was corrected once this was pointed out. Could easily have been staffer's mistake in compiling figures

The third is mere mis-statement, not outright lie, too.

"Biden said that Trump "asserted that immigrants would quote, ‘carve you up with a knife’." but Trump was talking about MS-13 gang members."  Trump still used the words that Biden quoted, merely in reference to a different group.




Trump lies; thousands of them, as someone else wrote above.

Trump was asked on Fox yesterday "What about UFOs", and he replied "We're looking at that very strongly"

Hogwash. Total fecking hogwash. He's not looking at UFOs AT ALL.

That's his standard response, he's not even listening to what the news anchor said, if he doesn't recognise what is being asked, it's "We're looking at that very strongly", "We'll have an answer in a couple of weeks".

No way is his administration even giving a second thought to UFOs at the moment. If he doesn't recognise what the news anchor is asking about, he fills in with this standard response to cover. THIS is outright lies. Not mis-statement, mistake or misquoting, just outright lying about doing something he/they are not.

[Dr David Thork]

Trump lies; thousands of them, as someone else wrote above.

Trump was asked on Fox yesterday "What about UFOs", and he replied "We're looking at that very strongly"

If you ask a stupid question, expect a stupid answer. I mean, a grown adult asking about UFOs? They're talking to the President on national TV. Ask about homelessness, military interventions, joblessness ... something important. What about UFOs? Yeah, sure, we're looking into it. ... That's the way you talk to a 5 year old, and if you reduce the conversation to that level, what do you expect? A serious answer? Does Trump have to reiterate that there aren't any aliens despite SETI wasting $billions to confirm as much? Its like asking him to condemn white nationalists. Has he not done that for at least 4 hours? He must have become a racist. 

No way is his administration even giving a second thought to UFOs at the moment.

So why ask such a stupid bloody question? It got the answer it deserves.

You only want two or three?
1) https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2007/sep/27/joe-biden/biden-way-off-on-alcohol-related-birth-defects/
2) https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/may/09/joe-biden/joe-biden-misstates-daily-deaths-united-states-can/
3) https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/aug/09/joe-biden/joe-biden-takes-donald-trumps-words-about-gang-mem/

The first is merely quoting a mistaken figure, not outright lie.

The second is too; Biden quoted stats for the Americas as a whole, not the United States, and it was corrected once this was pointed out. Could easily have been staffer's mistake in compiling figures

The third is mere mis-statement, not outright lie, too.

"Biden said that Trump "asserted that immigrants would quote, ‘carve you up with a knife’." but Trump was talking about MS-13 gang members."  Trump still used the words that Biden quoted, merely in reference to a different group.

You literally excused every lie your candidate made. It doesn't matter what lies he tells. He can tell us that he got arrested trying to protest Mandela's imprisonment in a blatant and patronising piece of pandering to black voters. It is every bit as transparent as Hilary claiming she walks around with a bottle of hot sauce in her handbag. And you don't care. You're more interested that Trump didn't waste 20 mins debating aliens and instead wafted the question away.

[Tumeni]

The point is that he has his standard picking list of answers;

If he hasn't heard about, doesn't know about it, doesn't understand what he is asked, his go-to is

"We're looking at that very strongly"
"We're looking into that very deeply"
"I'll have an answer to that in a couple of weeks"

Yesterday it was UFOs, but my point is that the subject does. not. matter. Yesterday's was especially "out there", but it's the same tactic every time, and this one pointed it up more than most, precisely due to its "out there-ness".

[Dr David Thork]

The point is that he has his standard picking list of answers;

If he hasn't heard about, doesn't know about it, doesn't understand what he is asked, his go-to is

"We're looking at that very strongly"
"We're looking into that very deeply"
"I'll have an answer to that in a couple of weeks"

Yesterday it was UFOs, but my point is that the subject does. not. matter. Yesterday's was especially "out there", but it's the same tactic every time, and this one pointed it up more than most, precisely due to its "out there-ness".

If this is the worst of his lying crimes, choose Trump. Listen to the absolute rot that Biden comes out with.

https://www.westernjournal.com/never-forget-massive-lie-joe-biden-told-number-college-degrees/

[Iceman]

That's clearly no where near the worst of his lying crimes though. Of the several thousand blatant lies, misleading statements, and outright falsehoods... the worst one might be "itll be gone in a week, like a miracle"

And sure, that's paraphrased, but saying ahit like that before doing painfully little to stop the deaths of >215k Americans is probably the worst. Or is the worst when he said "it affects almost no one" (again, paraphrased)...after 210k Americans had already died?

Ah man, now I dont even know!

[Rama Set]

some buzz words about the scientific American reporting on statistics being unscientific; this should t surprise anyone as statistics aren’t science.

Since you have discredited your own source it appears that you have conceded the discussion.

I have no idea what you are talking about and saying gotcha is pretty pointless. If you would like to make an actual point about the sources and researched reporting on government statistics on COVID deaths then I encourage you to do so.

[Lord Dave]

The point is that he has his standard picking list of answers;

If he hasn't heard about, doesn't know about it, doesn't understand what he is asked, his go-to is

"We're looking at that very strongly"
"We're looking into that very deeply"
"I'll have an answer to that in a couple of weeks"

Yesterday it was UFOs, but my point is that the subject does. not. matter. Yesterday's was especially "out there", but it's the same tactic every time, and this one pointed it up more than most, precisely due to its "out there-ness".

If this is the worst of his lying crimes, choose Trump. Listen to the absolute rot that Biden comes out with.

https://www.westernjournal.com/never-forget-massive-lie-joe-biden-told-number-college-degrees/

O.o thats it?

Lying then appologizing for stating he was top of his law school class?  Thats your evidence?

Also, that article is really slanted.  Biden clearly stated that Trump found success with what many before him have started with the UAE/Israel peace deal.  And he's right.  Trump wasn't the first one to try, he was just the first to succeed.

[Tom Bishop]

You guys would have no idea what the government is looking at. The government is always concerned about UFOs and UFO reports. That term doesn't even mean aliens, and has a military concern.

And being optimistic about the coronavirus (he didn't say in a week though) is not a lie at all.

Those aren't really lies. Falsely claiming academic credentials and achievements is certainly a lie, though.

some buzz words about the scientific American reporting on statistics being unscientific; this should t surprise anyone as statistics aren’t science.

Since you have discredited your own source it appears that you have conceded the discussion.

I have no idea what you are talking about

You discarded your source by saying that statistics aren't science. I can only see that as a concession of the discussion by you. Statistics aren't good enough.

[Rama Set]

You discarded your source by saying that statistics aren't science. I can only see that as a concession of the discussion by you. Statistics aren't good enough.

I have no idea where this stupid idea comes from but lots of things that aren't science are valuable.  All I am saying is that applying the scientific standards to statistics is nonsensical.

[Tom Bishop]

You discarded your source by saying that statistics aren't science. I can only see that as a concession of the discussion by you. Statistics aren't good enough.

I have no idea where this stupid idea comes from but lots of things that aren't science are valuable.  All I am saying is that applying the scientific standards to statistics is nonsensical.

So your source doesn't meet scientific standards? Compelling argument there. Very compelling.

When you can support your ideas with science let us know.

[Rama Set]

You discarded your source by saying that statistics aren't science. I can only see that as a concession of the discussion by you. Statistics aren't good enough.

I have no idea where this stupid idea comes from but lots of things that aren't science are valuable.  All I am saying is that applying the scientific standards to statistics is nonsensical.

So your source doesn't meet scientific standards? Compelling argument there. Very compelling.

When you can support your ideas with science let us know.

Again, I have no idea why you think that only scientific inquiry applied here. It shouldn’t surprise you that statistics don’t meet scientific standards. Just like your statistics about Trump viewership dont. They aren’t science. They are statistics.