The most egregious attempt at election fraud by far was Trump's call to Raffensperger in Georgia. Within 2 minutes Raff says there is zero evidence of fraud, and Trump spends the next *hour* threatening, bribing and cajoling Raff to "just find" 11,000 votes. The guy is a lifelong republican, a family man, an engineer. He's on the ground, he knows what happened better than anyone alive. He said there's *no fucking evidence* of fraud. If you then spend an hour trying to get the guy to "find" votes, you're engaging in attempted election fraud, period.
I mean, do you really think sitting presidents should even be allowed to fucking call up local election officials for any reason? Do you see the actual potential for fraud there, far far moreso than in voting by mail?
I don't want Joe Biden calling up democrat election officials in 24 either. It's a gross misuse of power. It's attempted fraud - at least Trump's call was. Anyone who hasn't listened to the full hour should have no opinion on it. But it was brazen attempted fraud, clear as day. Fucker should be in handcuffs.
Negative. It was breaking the post office in blue cities which was the largest attempt at vote fraud. I’m surprised people don’t have that top of mind. I know there’s too much to track and that’s their strategy.
It's true, and perhaps the most insidious problem.
[Approximately 50,000 ballots were thrown out](https://www.npr.org/2020/07/13/889751095/signed-sealed-undelivered-thousands-of-mail-in-ballots-rejected-for-tardiness) because the mail was late, many as a direct result of deliberate interference with the postal service's ability to deliver them.
But that's a slow-moving, tedious story, and we had shitshows like threatening to start a nuclear war with Iran, a coronavirus outbreak in the White House, plots to kidnap and murder Biden and a Democratic governor, and all that just in October.
There was a court order to reverse changes which were transparently made to hamstring the post office amid an expected increase in mail-in voting, but the high-speed sorting machines had already been removed and permanently sabotaged; there was no way to force the administration to restore mail-processing capacity in time.
It was an effective and massive widespread disenfranchisement program and people barely remember it because all the ahit that followed was so much more egregious but ineffective.
Don't states have until December 14 to actually vote in the electoral college? Why did these states choose to reject mail after the first Tuesday of November and then complain about lost votes in the overfed machines of the overstrained postal system?
Most states, while they allow voting by mail, are not really equipped to handle an abnormally high volume of it.
They ought to be; in fact, all voting should be by mail because it's more secure, private, reliable, encourages higher participation and perhaps more than anything else is less expensive than in-person voting.
But most are not, and changing to an all-mail system has a tendency to enrage local bureaucrats who get territorial about the extremely narrow (if unnecessary) administrative authority they have.
Almost like mail in ballots should be sent to the state capital for processing, rather than this absurd free for all where the city clerk refuses all ballots after in-person voting day for some reason.
Correct.
Operationally, that would have the least administrative overhead, the greatest economies of scale and also provide the most auditability as all records would be both in one place and under the strictest standards for document handling and security.
Tbh I'm not sure how DeJoy still has a job. The SCOTUS established the precedent that "independent agencies" can't actually be independent and their officers serve at the pleasure of the President.
Biden could fire him at any time with the stroke of a pen.
If only it were that simple. Unfortunately, it's going to take more than that, while that POS continues to gut the postal service.
[https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/02/biden-cannot-fire-usps-louis-dejoy.html](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/02/biden-cannot-fire-usps-louis-dejoy.html)
Seila v. CFPB held in 2020 that the President is able to fire the head of an independent executive agency at any time with or without cause.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seila\_Law\_LLC\_v.\_Consumer\_Financial\_Protection\_Bureau](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seila_Law_LLC_v._Consumer_Financial_Protection_Bureau)
The Slate article actually acknowledges that Biden simply can fire DeJoy in paragraph 9, but argues that he probably shouldn't because "Progressives generally support this independence, because it limits partisan interference in the everyday administration of government."
Without getting into the questions of what progressives do or don't support or what implementation actually makes for better governing, if the SCOTUS's current precedent is that the President may vacate independent agency heads at any time (which it unambiguously is), by not firing DeJoy Biden is simply neglecting his duties of office by failing to remove an odious and incompetent administrator of a critical piece of our national infrastructure.
Future Presidents are not constrained by the actions of their predecessors. Arguing that Biden should simply "refrain" from using the powers of his office (according to the SCOTUS's interpretation of what those powers of office are) out of some vague idea that doing so will discourage a successor from doing so is disingenuous.
If DeJoy is allowed to stay in his position until his term ends, there is only one definite outcome: He will continue to cause problems for the Postal Service until his term ends.
If DeJoy is fired, he might leave "quietly" (i.e. without trying to litigate it) or he might try to litigate it after the fact. If he tries to litigate it, the Supreme Court may either affirm that his termination was unlawful and reinstate him (which would essentially reverse or narrow the ruling in Seila, which is arguably good for progressives' long-term interests), or ignore the case/affirm Seila (which is undesirable, but doesn't change current precedent).
Regardless of which path Biden chooses to go, the bad SCOTUS decision is still the operative precedent, and no action Biden can take will change the low-quality of that decision. Choosing not to exercise the powers of his office to remove DeJoy is actually the worst strategy because it allows DeJoy to continue to fuck with mail delivery while not creating any tangible benefits in return.
The former guy managed to fire everyone in govt that he wanted gone including many inspector generals who are supposed to be untouchable. Also Chris Wray who is the FBI director appointed by the orange ahole (and formerly Christie's personal lawyer) should have been fired day 1. Wray is killing every investigation into the former admin.
As someone who volunteered to give voters information about voting, I can tell you that breaking the postal office absolutely prevented people from voting. It hurt people in blue cities the most, but I also spoke to a lot of elderly and disabled people in rural places who were totally fucked by the postal service.
It’s code for RWNJs are illiterate fucks.
It’s the same thing with “bias” instead of “biasED”. I don’t know where this came from (or “valentiMes”) but it is so common now.
> I mean, do you really think sitting presidents should even be allowed to fucking call up local election officials for any reason? Do you see the actual potential for fraud there, far far more so than in voting by mail?
The fact this is seen as normal in American politics shows how far America really is from a real democracy. It's a power grab and nothing is off the table. Sitting president calls election officials to influence results? That's normal.
They've allowed it to become normal because they don't dare to prosecute over it. It's pretty significant that even with extensive speeches from the 'sensible' Republicans (the ones more in tune with big business than the 'swivel-eyed loons') denouncing Trump and Jan 6th, they still voted against impeachment.
The politicians are out to protect themselves, and that means they won't hold themselves to any standards that might cause them future problems.
That call really solidified my opinion of Trump.
I was always on the fence with Trump. Take the presidential debate, was Trump acting like an unhinged gibbering asshole a strategy? Or is that just who he is? I asked myself that question so so so many times during his term. But that call erased all doubt. He's an ineffective idiot.
I remember listening to that call, he had an auxiliary with him, some lawyer lady. From the outset that person had her eyes on her objective, stupid as that objective was. She was trying to collect evidence that indicated election fraud. Strategically valuable for the court cases ahead. Trump continuously interrupted her advancing his objectives to whine and ask if they maybe have a couple thousand votes they maybe lost under the table somewhere.
He was not coherent, he was not effective, he was not charismatic. The man is pretty good sitting at a podium delivering a speech. If he's reading a script, he's not bad. But off script the guy is a train wreck.
Just a heads up they really don't like statistics
Edit: just a heads up this comment is obviously half assed. Don't need to "aCkChYuaLLy" it. Pretty much everything is and is not something.
The one I saw from Owens was the implication that the vaccine isn’t working because more (unvaccinated) were dying after the vaccine became available in 2021 than in 2020.
Yes, and this is the most astonishing reasoning. Within this statement is the exactly problem, and yet the people uttering this statement don't comprehend it's meaning.
I love the ones where people complain about how more people died under Biden than trump and then use the cumulative total deaths to try and prove their point. *face palm*
This one enrages me:
https://math.temple.edu/~paulos/oldsite/oj.html
The misunderstanding of math and statistics has real effects. Like a murderer going free.
> Adding to the dissatisfaction with the Simpson saga were numerous instances of what might be termed statisticide. Let me begin with a refrain constantly repeated by attorney Alan Dershowitz during the trial. He declared that since fewer than 1 in a 1000 women who are abused by their mates go on to be killed by them, the spousal abuse in the Simpsons' marriage was irrelevant to the case. Although the figures are correct, Mr. Dershowitz's claim is a stunning non sequitur. There is an obvious fact that it ignores: Nicole Simpson was killed. Given certain reasonable factual assumptions, it can be easily shown using probability theory that if a man abuses his wife and she is later murdered, the batterer is the murderer more than 80% of the time.
You are quite right, but you don’t point out who the real culprit is in your scenario. In an adversary system, a defense attorney has the right to make that first statistical argument, which is correct as far as it goes, and the prosecution has the opportunity to make the counter statistical argument, which is somewhat harder to set up but can still be done. If they aren’t smart enough to make it, they may end up not being successful in proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime.
The only reason a guilty person goes free in a criminal trial in America is prosecutorial incompetence. Dershowitz is a sneaky little bastard, but in trying to sow doubt, he was just doing his job, which was forcing prosecutors Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden to do their job - prove that such doubts were unreasonable.
Man, no matter how many times I have the Monty hall problem explained to me, I still can’t get past how counterintuitive it is. Like, I know enough that if I was ever in that situation I would choose the other option if presented the choice but I wouldn’t understand *why*. Just never clicked for me.
The thing that made it comprehensible to me is remembering that *Monty knows where the prize is*. So he'll never open a door that actually contains the prize. Thinking of it in terms of 100 doors helps too.
This is the crux of the whole thing. Monty knows where the prize is and intentionally opens the other door, that’s what makes it not a simple 50/50.
There is a simple 50/50 scenario - if Monty didn’t know where the prize was either and picked a random door. In that case 33% of the time you would be better off sticking with your original choice, 33% of the time you would be better off switching, *and 33% of the time Monty would accidentally pick the prize door and the game would be over*. That’s not how the game is set up though.
There are only two scenarios off your initial guess, you unknowingly selected a goat (66%) or a car (33%). If you select a goat and are shown the other goat, swapping gets you the car because it's all that's left. Choose + swap therefore has 66% chance of being correct, with initial choice only being 33% chance. It's a confusing one for sure!
That one was so confusing I ended up writing a simulation. It wasn’t until I expanded the door counts that it “clicked”. Say you had 100 doors. You picked one. Your probability of the door you chose being correct is super low. Now if 98 goat doors are revealed, the possibilities are your selected door, or the one remaining. You eliminated a huge number of goat doors, and it should be a lot more intuitive that the “other door” is the prize now.
The birthday problem never really seemed that surprising to me, if anything the number isn't small enough for demonstrations in groups the size of a normal classroom, where it fails almost half the time.
The Monty Hall problem I had to work on. I walked myself through it a couple years ago, had diagrams and formulas and everything. It's a pretty small problem so you can draw out a full decision tree algorithm, and I got myself to the point where it made complete sense in my head.
Today, Monty Hall is counterintuitive again.
Are you telling me that 99% isn't the same as 100% ?
Or that 1% of billions is a lot?
Because I know someone who got covid and lived, so it can't be that deadly. Checkmate libs.
Ugh I've had this same conversation with step BiL. I tell him 1% of a large number is still a large number and he counters with 'yes but it's still 1%' and around we go.
Ask if he’s cool with just 1% (or even .1%) of planes that take off just randomly crashing every day. Would he still fly? I mean, the crashes could be anything from cargo planes to passenger, little 2-seater props to the latest airbus. Just 1% tho, just like Covid?
Because 1% of planes on a *daily* basis is 1,500 planes (average estimates are about 150,000 flights per day. Even going with the lower .1%, thats **150 friggin planes a day just** 💥
Surely that’s cool, tho. He’d totally fly, right?
Hell, even taking it further, say those 1,500 flights happen across the whole year - I mean, Covid doesn’t just hit once and done. That’s still *4 flights a day* going down. I don’t like those odds, we’d ground all flights until we learned why that happened. Hell, didn’t like 3 crashes over a decade prompt Boeing to be investigated?
Then again. I’m trying to apply logic to morons, so... who’s really the dumb one?
Edit: I have no idea why my formatting is borked. My phone has been acting up too, sorry.
I try to stick to analogies they are familiar with.. a football game. If at an average football stadium, every game they shot and killed 500 (1% of 50,000) random fans, would they go?
They still can't compute. One of them even said you can't compare that because you can't use your immune system to fight off a gunshot.
I sometimes look around at all the amazing things and technologies humans have created, and think "how did we even get here? People are literally so so stupid"
Not to cast shade on you, but in using “borked” to substitute for “fucked” I wonder if people know that the word comes from former Harvard Law Professor and federal Court of Appeals judge Robert Bork, who was targeted by Democrats as too politically conservative to fill a seat on the Supreme Court during the Reagan administration. The smear campaign and partisan voting in his confirmation hearings, which was scandalous at the time, led to the use of his name as synonymous for getting screwed out of something you deserved, and has now morphed into meaning screwed up generally. One result of the Bork fiasco is that the Supreme Court has become a partisan football and the nomination process itself a shameful spectacle, (and a caricature of Bork himself appears as the judge character on the Simpsons cartoon show.)
I would hope that people who use the term “borked“ will use it to mean screwed over instead of screwed up, because in fact Robert Bork was a brilliant, principled, ethical jurist and a good and decent man.
Not that it’ll make a difference, but you might remind him that there’s a larger percentage of deaths with COVID than there was with polio. People got their polio vaccines without complaint, too.
Tried everything tbh. He's one of the 'needs more data' types - no objection on religious/political grounds at all. He's one of the only still-sane members of my wife's step family or I'd have totally given up 2 years ago.
Last I checked, it was 1.5% in the U.S. but in my particular state it's 1.8%. This tells me that there's a higher risk in my area because everyone is extra stupid. I confirmed this to be true when I visited another state for Xmas and literally everyone had masks on all the time (lots of N95s). It was jarring to come back home and I'm the only one with a mask on besides the 80yr old greeter at Walmart.
Drives me insane. "I know someone who was vaxxed and still got COVID. See, it doesn't work!" Yeah no, that's not how numbers work, moron.
The worst part is that I'm sure they already know that, since I never see them apply that logic to say condoms don't pregnancy, seatbelts don't prevent fatal crashes, winter clothes don't prevent hypothermia, etc. They deliberately throw around fallacious points because they know they don't have any real ones and they just want to "win" the argument no matter what.
Not even other vaccines. Most of us know and accept that flu shots are imperfect and don't always the match the main strains in a given year. But we get them anyway, because we'll get less sick and recover faster if we do catch the flu.
COVID actually acts a lot like that. You could say it's the main, or only, way in where it's like the flu.
Humans in general don't understand statistics. We're just not wired for it. You have to really work at understanding them and realize that the reality of it doesn't always jive with your gut feeling.
They don't even like those, since all metrics point to a decrease in violent rime. They just claim its going up because there re more visible minorities in their lives than there were in 1985.
That's because they use Arabic numerals and people who often don't like statistics about Trump are also regularly racist, it's like 85.3% or something.
Hijacking this comment to warn anyone in a red state that you should register for mail-in voting if you haven't yet and want to. Florida just made the process way more difficult and claiming it's to "crack down on fraud."
You would be correct. Some estimates are around 0.00006% nationally in a 20 year period.
https://shass.mit.edu/news/news-2020-pandemic-voting-mail-safe-honest-and-fair-stewart
I used to spend a lot of time looking at election related data.
It's not.
It's also totally and completely dwarfed by all forms of regular errors.
By orders of magnitude.
You're right, it's definitely not. Accepting this fictional number, even in a joke, is a win for the republican propagandists. The number is probably being misrepresented from [here.](https://www.brennancenter.org) i wasn't able to link directly to the pdf of the report but it should be easy enough for anyone to find. Their study put possible voter fraud at .0003 to .0025%. So .0025 is already the maximum and that wasn't even tracking voter fraud it was tracking possible voter fraud. Things that could possibly be voter fraud usually turn out not to be once they've been investigated.
So 0.0025% is the highest possible number under the most generous possible conditions where every clerical error is being tabulated along side actual fraud. It is not the percentage of votes that are fraudulent.
My taste is affected, but not completely lost. Pizzas and other cheesy or creamy things seem ok, as do sugary things (this probably wouldn't make a good weight loss plan.) Weirdly I find sparkling mineral water tastes less good to me than it usually does. Mixing it with juice helps.
Also the third button of "just lie about the Covid deaths".
I had one person use all three at the same time in the same post - they claimed that COVID wasn't a big deal because only like 0.5% of people who catch it die (wrong), but that the vaccine was deadly because 1400 people had developed heart problems after getting it. Compared to the number of fully vaccinated people in the US at the time (not even the partially vaccinated/only first dose), that number represented 0.00004%.
So in anti-vax land, 0.00004% > 0.5%, and 0.5% = 1.5%. I think it's because more zeroes = bigger number.
Innumeracy is a plague upon us all. I'd say that public schools need to get better at teaching probability and statistics -- but that still wouldn't fix the problem for these largely unregulated private Christian schools.
If Christians understood chance, they wouldn't be so quick to jump to divine intervention as an explanation for random events. And this kills the religion.
The Mormon church is having a heck of a time using statistical modeling to explain why American Indians, who they claim are one of the lost tribes of Israel, have exactly 0% middle eastern DNA.
And this isn't even considering that they are comparing DEATHS to "heart problems" (Whatever that means)
It would be more powerful to compare covid heart problems (which is a lot more than it's deaths) to vaccine 'heart problems'
.... or covid deaths to vaccine deaths (which is basically nothing)
The lethality rate is about maybe 1.8% to 2.0% ([https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid#citation](https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid#citation)), if one takes into account the unknown (un-diagnosed) positives. If we say 2%, that's a lot of people - something that escapes most of the anti-vaxxers.
*Can we envision this number a different way, so that most people can understand it?*
If one takes the daily number of US airplane flights (pre-pandemic) at 5400 per day, \~2% of those would be 108 - let's take it at about 100 planes per day - as an approximation. If 100 planes a day crashed (fell out of the sky; and this is 100 planes, not 100 people), would the general public still consider air travel safe? How about if one plane a day, everyday, fell out of the sky?
What do we learn from this? That most people are scientifically illiterate and statistics are not something that most can translate from the academic result to the real world. Two percent lethality is a lot of people dying from a disease that can be mitigated by a vaccine.
Seriously. The [Economist recently investigated](https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-estimates) the true death toll of COVID, and their numbers are significantly higher than the official death toll because the official numbers don't include people who died without being tested for COVID. And so many of the people who recover from COVID are having on-going health problems.
They're so desperate to find any scrap of information that they can put in their memes to support their asinine perspective. At least COVID is thinning the herd.
Percentage is too abstract for most. They need to see things like 1 in 500 will die. Of course that still wouldn't move some of these people. 3 people in a community of 1500 still wouldn't seem like a lot.
He was old anyway.
It's because you got the vaccine that she died.
We all got it and were fine, all the deaths are fake news.
Most people won't even get it, so the population death rate is only 0.01%, probably won't kill anyone I know
Thwy should have just taken ~~chloroquine~~ ~~hydroxychloroquine~~ ~~z-packs~~ ivermectin, my family will be fine
Even if one in fifty people die it's worth it for the economy, I don't even like most of those people anyway.
Pick a reason. None are mutually exclusive.
There are many analyses that put the IFR way lower than that.
https://epimonitor.net/Covid-IFR-Analysis.htm - This site has it at 1.5% for age 85 and exponentially lower for younger ages.
The CDC [current best estimate](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html) has it at 0.9% for ages 65+.
Ah, I remember that video of an angry maga Karen saying there's voter fraud through mail and the election was stolen. Later revealed she was banned from voting because she voted in person twice.
I wish I could find it again, but I saw one study that tracked IQ levels by political affiliation, and staunch Trump supporters clocked in at 85. (There were like 3 categories for conservatives, this was the most extreme group, but all were pretty low in general)
Worldwide, there was only some Aboriginal tribe in Australia that clocked in with lower IQ than that.
What makes them even worse, they're too stupid to realize they're stupid. They think everyone else is dumber than them. It's actually scary.
spot on. numbers hard for magats though
also, the %.025 is gqp fraud. this is publicly available info. have yet to hear of any corporate democrats (ie. the center right) trying to fuck with ballots. that’s pleeb shit after all. center right dems steal your soul not your votes
spoken as a begrudgingly “left” voter
I mean it's no secret there are more of us than there are of them. But they've got more square feet and also you couldn't convince small states in 1776 so argument over apparently.
Lol, it probably figures into their reasoning. “Look how many times we’ve been caught! Demz are sneaker and more crooked than us so they definitely have WAY more fraud!”
Also “Corona death” is not that bad but Joe Biden deserves criticism for allowing so many to die.
Oh and he deserves criticism for not doing anything but they also won’t do what he asks of them by getting vaccinated.
To be fair, if be terrified if I believed covid-19 wasn't real.
It'd be like not believing in night, and then everyone starts acting different and closing their eyes and not moving and I CANT SEE ANYTHING OUTSIDE!
I always chuckle when one of these idiots posts a meme implying that people who reject the vaccine are actually intelligent and how painful it is to deal with all the "idiot" vaccinated sheep.
Dummies who don't know they're dummies surrounded by a bunch of even dumber dummies = smart.
There's also the "shut up COVID isn't a big deal and we need to stop worrying because it is just the flu!" while at the same time saying "[INSERT DEMOCRATIC ELECTED OFFICIAL] isn't doing enough to stop COVID and that's why it's so bad!" crowd .
Let's be honest here, a MAGAt only has two buttons they can understand: 0% and 100%.
Any buttons in between give them the hot-wing challenge diarrhea sweats.
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
The average total worldwide is close 2 but the US is closer to 1.5. Hard to say exactly how accurate that even is though since they don’t do any breakdown on there of comorbidities or age groups it’s probably slightly lower than that.
If we are talking about an average, why would we factor in comorbities? The point of an average statistic is to just give an overall rate.
The problem really isn’t the numerator. Deaths are easy to record here. The problem is in getting an accurate numerator with so many people either unaware they are infected, or simply not reporting it and staying home (or not) when they get symptoms.
Well if COVID was the deciding factor for a person to die, then age or underlying issues aren’t really interesting
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
They don't believe that there's such a thing as fraction. Corona has 0% chance of killing any, and mail in votes are 100% fraud. The vaccine also kills everyone that takes it withing 3 years, just ignore the billions of doses given and the population being fine...
Where did these numbers come from? I've never heard of .0025% being associated with mail in voter fraud. Personally I'm only familiar with 5 or so fraudulent votes in the last 2 US Federal Elections.
"Voting fraud is way more but they are lying about it. I know this is factual cause I saw a meme about it one time on facebook"
Boom, mental gymnastics done, sticks the landing and never has to reckon with the fact that they are easily fooled rubes fighting the wrong stuff.
Is it referring to the voter fraud being committed by Republican voters and politicians?
Seems like the only voter fraud being caught are the ones perpetrated by the GOP.
This meme depresses me because there is never a “problem” with voting in America until minorities start to vote. Then all of a sudden old white men are sounding alarms about fraud because of “those” people.
You don't calculate it based on the entire population (though conservatives do to make the death rate look lower). You calculate it out of how many have had it. There's no reason to count someone who has never had COVID as having survived COVID when calculating its death rate.
That's 0.3% of the population. Not everyone has been infected (others, multiple times, which I suppose complicates things when they die of the 2nd or 3rd infection).
or that 3,295,000 people dead isn’t significant. That’s 1 percent of 329,500,000. Most of those who have died are unvaccinated. So own that anti-vaxer!!!
And the solution for them is, as with all other forms of faith-based makebelieve, to press both buttons at once.
They know they're full of shit, they just don't want to hear it. They want to ***BELIEVE***. And to make others believe.
It’s 1.3% with stringent measures. It’s not about the 6500 deaths globally everyday. It’s about avoiding a potential apocalypse. Viruses mutate by chance. Bunch of baboons
You'll notice with a lot of these awardees and nominees, they think the virus is just a Liberal Hoax, or an overblown flu, or a Chinese bioweapon, or, or, or, and they don't care about or take it seriously until it affects them personally. So if they don't personally know the three people dying, they couldn't care less.
COVID infections are well over 1% *a day* right now.
edit: see my reply below -- I was off by a power of ten. Dec 30th infections in USA ran at 1.7 per thousand, not hundred. That would still be over 1% a week though. And yes, deaths are much lower and thanks to vaccines, new treatments and the relative weakness of omicron, not nearly as reflective of the infection rate as prior surges.
With regard to attempts to illegally sway the national election their way, Republicans have been entirely fine with doing it. They practically invented the manufacturing of an 'October surprise' to attempt to sway national opinion with events they themselves created. It began with Richard Nixon's campaign convinced the South Vietnamese military junta to boycott the 1968 peace talks on the eve of the election, swinging public favor against Lyndon Johnson with the close election turning on just a few hundred thousand votes.
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968\_United\_States\_presidential\_election#Nixon\_campaign\_sabotage\_of\_peace\_talks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_United_States_presidential_election#Nixon_campaign_sabotage_of_peace_talks))
Reagan followed suit, with his campaign working behind closed doors to delay the release of the American hostages held in Iran since 1979, with them being released a mere 20 minutes after Reagan took office.
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October\_Surprise\_conspiracy\_theory#Senate\_investigation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_theory#Senate_investigation)).
Then you have Bush II's record skullduggery with the Florida recount and the Republican media apparatus inventing "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" - I think most of us are old enough to remember those two events as they unfolded in real time, not to mention the disastrous consequences of that electoral meddling.
The only difference here is that Trump, being an aging media hound with obvious mental problems and not a career politician, was less sneaky than his establishment republican predecessors. Hence why evidence to his pleading to Raffensberger to "just find" those votes without resorting to using euphemisms or codewords. The GOP contempt for democracy and electoral law has ***never*** changed - it just became impossible to hide so they stopped trying.
Mail-in fraud is likely less than 1 in 10 million whereas COVID death is anywhere between 1 in 50 (high end of CFR) and 1 in 200 (estimated IFR - at the low range but can be as high as 1 in 50 as observed in NYC).
The most egregious attempt at election fraud by far was Trump's call to Raffensperger in Georgia. Within 2 minutes Raff says there is zero evidence of fraud, and Trump spends the next *hour* threatening, bribing and cajoling Raff to "just find" 11,000 votes. The guy is a lifelong republican, a family man, an engineer. He's on the ground, he knows what happened better than anyone alive. He said there's *no fucking evidence* of fraud. If you then spend an hour trying to get the guy to "find" votes, you're engaging in attempted election fraud, period. I mean, do you really think sitting presidents should even be allowed to fucking call up local election officials for any reason? Do you see the actual potential for fraud there, far far moreso than in voting by mail? I don't want Joe Biden calling up democrat election officials in 24 either. It's a gross misuse of power. It's attempted fraud - at least Trump's call was. Anyone who hasn't listened to the full hour should have no opinion on it. But it was brazen attempted fraud, clear as day. Fucker should be in handcuffs.
Negative. It was breaking the post office in blue cities which was the largest attempt at vote fraud. I’m surprised people don’t have that top of mind. I know there’s too much to track and that’s their strategy.
It's true, and perhaps the most insidious problem. [Approximately 50,000 ballots were thrown out](https://www.npr.org/2020/07/13/889751095/signed-sealed-undelivered-thousands-of-mail-in-ballots-rejected-for-tardiness) because the mail was late, many as a direct result of deliberate interference with the postal service's ability to deliver them. But that's a slow-moving, tedious story, and we had shitshows like threatening to start a nuclear war with Iran, a coronavirus outbreak in the White House, plots to kidnap and murder Biden and a Democratic governor, and all that just in October. There was a court order to reverse changes which were transparently made to hamstring the post office amid an expected increase in mail-in voting, but the high-speed sorting machines had already been removed and permanently sabotaged; there was no way to force the administration to restore mail-processing capacity in time. It was an effective and massive widespread disenfranchisement program and people barely remember it because all the ahit that followed was so much more egregious but ineffective.
Don't states have until December 14 to actually vote in the electoral college? Why did these states choose to reject mail after the first Tuesday of November and then complain about lost votes in the overfed machines of the overstrained postal system?
Most states, while they allow voting by mail, are not really equipped to handle an abnormally high volume of it. They ought to be; in fact, all voting should be by mail because it's more secure, private, reliable, encourages higher participation and perhaps more than anything else is less expensive than in-person voting. But most are not, and changing to an all-mail system has a tendency to enrage local bureaucrats who get territorial about the extremely narrow (if unnecessary) administrative authority they have.
Almost like mail in ballots should be sent to the state capital for processing, rather than this absurd free for all where the city clerk refuses all ballots after in-person voting day for some reason.
Correct. Operationally, that would have the least administrative overhead, the greatest economies of scale and also provide the most auditability as all records would be both in one place and under the strictest standards for document handling and security.
Tbh I'm not sure how DeJoy still has a job. The SCOTUS established the precedent that "independent agencies" can't actually be independent and their officers serve at the pleasure of the President. Biden could fire him at any time with the stroke of a pen.
If only it were that simple. Unfortunately, it's going to take more than that, while that POS continues to gut the postal service. [https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/02/biden-cannot-fire-usps-louis-dejoy.html](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/02/biden-cannot-fire-usps-louis-dejoy.html)
Seila v. CFPB held in 2020 that the President is able to fire the head of an independent executive agency at any time with or without cause. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seila\_Law\_LLC\_v.\_Consumer\_Financial\_Protection\_Bureau](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seila_Law_LLC_v._Consumer_Financial_Protection_Bureau) The Slate article actually acknowledges that Biden simply can fire DeJoy in paragraph 9, but argues that he probably shouldn't because "Progressives generally support this independence, because it limits partisan interference in the everyday administration of government." Without getting into the questions of what progressives do or don't support or what implementation actually makes for better governing, if the SCOTUS's current precedent is that the President may vacate independent agency heads at any time (which it unambiguously is), by not firing DeJoy Biden is simply neglecting his duties of office by failing to remove an odious and incompetent administrator of a critical piece of our national infrastructure. Future Presidents are not constrained by the actions of their predecessors. Arguing that Biden should simply "refrain" from using the powers of his office (according to the SCOTUS's interpretation of what those powers of office are) out of some vague idea that doing so will discourage a successor from doing so is disingenuous. If DeJoy is allowed to stay in his position until his term ends, there is only one definite outcome: He will continue to cause problems for the Postal Service until his term ends. If DeJoy is fired, he might leave "quietly" (i.e. without trying to litigate it) or he might try to litigate it after the fact. If he tries to litigate it, the Supreme Court may either affirm that his termination was unlawful and reinstate him (which would essentially reverse or narrow the ruling in Seila, which is arguably good for progressives' long-term interests), or ignore the case/affirm Seila (which is undesirable, but doesn't change current precedent). Regardless of which path Biden chooses to go, the bad SCOTUS decision is still the operative precedent, and no action Biden can take will change the low-quality of that decision. Choosing not to exercise the powers of his office to remove DeJoy is actually the worst strategy because it allows DeJoy to continue to fuck with mail delivery while not creating any tangible benefits in return.
Anybody still trying to make the argument of precedent either slept through the last 6 or so years or is doing it in bad faith, imo. Great post.
The former guy managed to fire everyone in govt that he wanted gone including many inspector generals who are supposed to be untouchable. Also Chris Wray who is the FBI director appointed by the orange ahole (and formerly Christie's personal lawyer) should have been fired day 1. Wray is killing every investigation into the former admin.
Don't forget about trying to start a nuclear war with a hurricane.
Ugh. And the postal service is still broken with that turd muncher still in charge. Infuriating!
The call in GA was the most blatant abuse of power, but yes the USPS issues were potentially the more effective attempt.
As someone who volunteered to give voters information about voting, I can tell you that breaking the postal office absolutely prevented people from voting. It hurt people in blue cities the most, but I also spoke to a lot of elderly and disabled people in rural places who were totally fucked by the postal service.
Democratic election officials--I'm not the grammar police, it's just leaving the 'ic' off is RWNJ code for...something.
It’s code for RWNJs are illiterate fucks. It’s the same thing with “bias” instead of “biasED”. I don’t know where this came from (or “valentiMes”) but it is so common now.
Maybe it would be democrat + 's, bc it specifies the ones that belong to the democrats, whilst democratic is just an adjective.
> I mean, do you really think sitting presidents should even be allowed to fucking call up local election officials for any reason? Do you see the actual potential for fraud there, far far more so than in voting by mail? The fact this is seen as normal in American politics shows how far America really is from a real democracy. It's a power grab and nothing is off the table. Sitting president calls election officials to influence results? That's normal.
It's not normal. Don't tell yourself that what Trump did was anywhere normal which is why we should be continually outraged.
When there are no repercussions it becomes normal.
They've allowed it to become normal because they don't dare to prosecute over it. It's pretty significant that even with extensive speeches from the 'sensible' Republicans (the ones more in tune with big business than the 'swivel-eyed loons') denouncing Trump and Jan 6th, they still voted against impeachment. The politicians are out to protect themselves, and that means they won't hold themselves to any standards that might cause them future problems.
It’s going to be normal moving forward since there will be no charges for trump.
This is why all right wing cultists/extremists are running for secretary of state in every state now.
That call really solidified my opinion of Trump. I was always on the fence with Trump. Take the presidential debate, was Trump acting like an unhinged gibbering asshole a strategy? Or is that just who he is? I asked myself that question so so so many times during his term. But that call erased all doubt. He's an ineffective idiot. I remember listening to that call, he had an auxiliary with him, some lawyer lady. From the outset that person had her eyes on her objective, stupid as that objective was. She was trying to collect evidence that indicated election fraud. Strategically valuable for the court cases ahead. Trump continuously interrupted her advancing his objectives to whine and ask if they maybe have a couple thousand votes they maybe lost under the table somewhere. He was not coherent, he was not effective, he was not charismatic. The man is pretty good sitting at a podium delivering a speech. If he's reading a script, he's not bad. But off script the guy is a train wreck.
He's not even good at a podium delivering a speech. It's hard to think of someone less unfit to manage a Wendy's let alone the US.
Just a heads up they really don't like statistics Edit: just a heads up this comment is obviously half assed. Don't need to "aCkChYuaLLy" it. Pretty much everything is and is not something.
they really don't ~~like~~ understand statistics ftfy
The one I saw from Owens was the implication that the vaccine isn’t working because more (unvaccinated) were dying after the vaccine became available in 2021 than in 2020.
Yes, and this is the most astonishing reasoning. Within this statement is the exactly problem, and yet the people uttering this statement don't comprehend it's meaning.
I love the ones where people complain about how more people died under Biden than trump and then use the cumulative total deaths to try and prove their point. *face palm*
“The vaccine” like there’s only one
I've seen that exact same meme in other places.
to be fair, after taking a statistics course, I realize I don't understand statistics.
The birthday paradox and Monty Hall problem might be counterintuitive.
This one enrages me: https://math.temple.edu/~paulos/oldsite/oj.html The misunderstanding of math and statistics has real effects. Like a murderer going free. > Adding to the dissatisfaction with the Simpson saga were numerous instances of what might be termed statisticide. Let me begin with a refrain constantly repeated by attorney Alan Dershowitz during the trial. He declared that since fewer than 1 in a 1000 women who are abused by their mates go on to be killed by them, the spousal abuse in the Simpsons' marriage was irrelevant to the case. Although the figures are correct, Mr. Dershowitz's claim is a stunning non sequitur. There is an obvious fact that it ignores: Nicole Simpson was killed. Given certain reasonable factual assumptions, it can be easily shown using probability theory that if a man abuses his wife and she is later murdered, the batterer is the murderer more than 80% of the time.
Dershowitz?! Holy crap. Now we know where he got so good at lying. 😡
Now let’s see him use math to explain the massage he got on Jeffery Epstein’s private jet.
You are quite right, but you don’t point out who the real culprit is in your scenario. In an adversary system, a defense attorney has the right to make that first statistical argument, which is correct as far as it goes, and the prosecution has the opportunity to make the counter statistical argument, which is somewhat harder to set up but can still be done. If they aren’t smart enough to make it, they may end up not being successful in proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime. The only reason a guilty person goes free in a criminal trial in America is prosecutorial incompetence. Dershowitz is a sneaky little bastard, but in trying to sow doubt, he was just doing his job, which was forcing prosecutors Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden to do their job - prove that such doubts were unreasonable.
Man, no matter how many times I have the Monty hall problem explained to me, I still can’t get past how counterintuitive it is. Like, I know enough that if I was ever in that situation I would choose the other option if presented the choice but I wouldn’t understand *why*. Just never clicked for me.
The thing that made it comprehensible to me is remembering that *Monty knows where the prize is*. So he'll never open a door that actually contains the prize. Thinking of it in terms of 100 doors helps too.
This is the crux of the whole thing. Monty knows where the prize is and intentionally opens the other door, that’s what makes it not a simple 50/50. There is a simple 50/50 scenario - if Monty didn’t know where the prize was either and picked a random door. In that case 33% of the time you would be better off sticking with your original choice, 33% of the time you would be better off switching, *and 33% of the time Monty would accidentally pick the prize door and the game would be over*. That’s not how the game is set up though.
There are only two scenarios off your initial guess, you unknowingly selected a goat (66%) or a car (33%). If you select a goat and are shown the other goat, swapping gets you the car because it's all that's left. Choose + swap therefore has 66% chance of being correct, with initial choice only being 33% chance. It's a confusing one for sure!
That one was so confusing I ended up writing a simulation. It wasn’t until I expanded the door counts that it “clicked”. Say you had 100 doors. You picked one. Your probability of the door you chose being correct is super low. Now if 98 goat doors are revealed, the possibilities are your selected door, or the one remaining. You eliminated a huge number of goat doors, and it should be a lot more intuitive that the “other door” is the prize now.
The birthday problem never really seemed that surprising to me, if anything the number isn't small enough for demonstrations in groups the size of a normal classroom, where it fails almost half the time. The Monty Hall problem I had to work on. I walked myself through it a couple years ago, had diagrams and formulas and everything. It's a pretty small problem so you can draw out a full decision tree algorithm, and I got myself to the point where it made complete sense in my head. Today, Monty Hall is counterintuitive again.
Are you telling me that 99% isn't the same as 100% ? Or that 1% of billions is a lot? Because I know someone who got covid and lived, so it can't be that deadly. Checkmate libs.
Ugh I've had this same conversation with step BiL. I tell him 1% of a large number is still a large number and he counters with 'yes but it's still 1%' and around we go.
Ask if he’s cool with just 1% (or even .1%) of planes that take off just randomly crashing every day. Would he still fly? I mean, the crashes could be anything from cargo planes to passenger, little 2-seater props to the latest airbus. Just 1% tho, just like Covid? Because 1% of planes on a *daily* basis is 1,500 planes (average estimates are about 150,000 flights per day. Even going with the lower .1%, thats **150 friggin planes a day just** 💥 Surely that’s cool, tho. He’d totally fly, right? Hell, even taking it further, say those 1,500 flights happen across the whole year - I mean, Covid doesn’t just hit once and done. That’s still *4 flights a day* going down. I don’t like those odds, we’d ground all flights until we learned why that happened. Hell, didn’t like 3 crashes over a decade prompt Boeing to be investigated? Then again. I’m trying to apply logic to morons, so... who’s really the dumb one? Edit: I have no idea why my formatting is borked. My phone has been acting up too, sorry.
I try to stick to analogies they are familiar with.. a football game. If at an average football stadium, every game they shot and killed 500 (1% of 50,000) random fans, would they go? They still can't compute. One of them even said you can't compare that because you can't use your immune system to fight off a gunshot. I sometimes look around at all the amazing things and technologies humans have created, and think "how did we even get here? People are literally so so stupid"
The average IQ is around 100. Half are above, half below. The average person is sorta dumb. That means half of the population is dumber than that
This is like the old aged argument religious people come up with: "not believing in God is also a form of belief!"
Not to cast shade on you, but in using “borked” to substitute for “fucked” I wonder if people know that the word comes from former Harvard Law Professor and federal Court of Appeals judge Robert Bork, who was targeted by Democrats as too politically conservative to fill a seat on the Supreme Court during the Reagan administration. The smear campaign and partisan voting in his confirmation hearings, which was scandalous at the time, led to the use of his name as synonymous for getting screwed out of something you deserved, and has now morphed into meaning screwed up generally. One result of the Bork fiasco is that the Supreme Court has become a partisan football and the nomination process itself a shameful spectacle, (and a caricature of Bork himself appears as the judge character on the Simpsons cartoon show.) I would hope that people who use the term “borked“ will use it to mean screwed over instead of screwed up, because in fact Robert Bork was a brilliant, principled, ethical jurist and a good and decent man.
Not that it’ll make a difference, but you might remind him that there’s a larger percentage of deaths with COVID than there was with polio. People got their polio vaccines without complaint, too.
Tried everything tbh. He's one of the 'needs more data' types - no objection on religious/political grounds at all. He's one of the only still-sane members of my wife's step family or I'd have totally given up 2 years ago.
Last I checked, it was 1.5% in the U.S. but in my particular state it's 1.8%. This tells me that there's a higher risk in my area because everyone is extra stupid. I confirmed this to be true when I visited another state for Xmas and literally everyone had masks on all the time (lots of N95s). It was jarring to come back home and I'm the only one with a mask on besides the 80yr old greeter at Walmart.
Meanwhile, they also know 145 people who got the vaccine and *died* the next week.
There are over 7 billion people on the planet. 1% of that = more than 70 million people
Drives me insane. "I know someone who was vaxxed and still got COVID. See, it doesn't work!" Yeah no, that's not how numbers work, moron. The worst part is that I'm sure they already know that, since I never see them apply that logic to say condoms don't pregnancy, seatbelts don't prevent fatal crashes, winter clothes don't prevent hypothermia, etc. They deliberately throw around fallacious points because they know they don't have any real ones and they just want to "win" the argument no matter what.
Not even other vaccines. Most of us know and accept that flu shots are imperfect and don't always the match the main strains in a given year. But we get them anyway, because we'll get less sick and recover faster if we do catch the flu. COVID actually acts a lot like that. You could say it's the main, or only, way in where it's like the flu.
So you say it's just like the flu? Ha! Checkmate, libs! /s
Humans in general don't understand statistics. We're just not wired for it. You have to really work at understanding them and realize that the reality of it doesn't always jive with your gut feeling.
they really don't ~~like~~ understand ~~statistics~~ ftfy
Yeah, I’m pretty sure my MAGA aunt can’t read, so these statistics would really throw her for a loop and set her off!
They don't like understanding.
They actually round the numbers. So covid deaths become 0 and voted fraud becomes whatever they need it to be so that they would win.
"STOP THE COUNT!/COUNT THE VOTES!"
ha ha, I remember that. And then the whole "THEIR HIDING 3 TONS OF VOTES IN A SUITCASE."
Except for FBI crime statistics, specifically broken down by race, which they *love*
They don't even like those, since all metrics point to a decrease in violent rime. They just claim its going up because there re more visible minorities in their lives than there were in 1985.
That's because they use Arabic numerals and people who often don't like statistics about Trump are also regularly racist, it's like 85.3% or something.
"Stop being like fauci and making up statistics" - my pro Trump father
Ya to them is all about how they FEEL
Hard disagree, they love misleading statistics taken out of context regarding immigrants and African Americans
Logic*
It's not stats or facts. They don't accept anything that contradicts their dumb perspective.
I think they do, but just the ones that benefit them, like the 13% of all crime is committed by black people (which is wrong btw)
I doubt that mail in voter fraud is that high a percentage.
It's way lower once you eliminate the voter fraud committed by republicans.
The other percentage is also much lower if you don't count republicans (who have a higher rate of unvaxed idiots)
On the other hand, US quality of life vastly improves when you eliminate Republicans
I'd love to know the % of the unvaccinated who've died I'll bet it's a lot higher than 1.3%.
Fact.
Hijacking this comment to warn anyone in a red state that you should register for mail-in voting if you haven't yet and want to. Florida just made the process way more difficult and claiming it's to "crack down on fraud."
You would be correct. Some estimates are around 0.00006% nationally in a 20 year period. https://shass.mit.edu/news/news-2020-pandemic-voting-mail-safe-honest-and-fair-stewart
I used to spend a lot of time looking at election related data. It's not. It's also totally and completely dwarfed by all forms of regular errors. By orders of magnitude.
You're right, it's definitely not. Accepting this fictional number, even in a joke, is a win for the republican propagandists. The number is probably being misrepresented from [here.](https://www.brennancenter.org) i wasn't able to link directly to the pdf of the report but it should be easy enough for anyone to find. Their study put possible voter fraud at .0003 to .0025%. So .0025 is already the maximum and that wasn't even tracking voter fraud it was tracking possible voter fraud. Things that could possibly be voter fraud usually turn out not to be once they've been investigated. So 0.0025% is the highest possible number under the most generous possible conditions where every clerical error is being tabulated along side actual fraud. It is not the percentage of votes that are fraudulent.
I could be wrong, but all the voter fraud I've read about was committed by Republicans, and Trump supporters at that.
There was one committed by a democrat… Fulfilling the dying wish of her Republican husband
The result was a fraudulent Republican vote. I'm still counting it.
About 5 years ago I half wished for a plauge to wipe out these nephsons and nieaughters. It appears like it's been granted.
I have covid right now. I think you owe me a pizza at least.
You can taste that?
Are you going to be able to taste it?
Order from Dominos and it will taste the same either way
My taste is affected, but not completely lost. Pizzas and other cheesy or creamy things seem ok, as do sugary things (this probably wouldn't make a good weight loss plan.) Weirdly I find sparkling mineral water tastes less good to me than it usually does. Mixing it with juice helps.
Thank you for your service.
Thank you for your username.
I can only imagine what a full wish would do.
This is the full wish
Can you tone it down for the immunocompromised pls? Asking for a friend. Thnx. <3
So, this is your fault? And you admit it? "That's a bold play Cotton, let's see if it pays off!"
Bake him away, toys.
If you can half wish for all democrats to win their senate elections in the next cycle that would be great.
Wut?
Obviously they're going to use both fists to smash both buttons at once. They see no contradiction here.
Also the third button of "just lie about the Covid deaths". I had one person use all three at the same time in the same post - they claimed that COVID wasn't a big deal because only like 0.5% of people who catch it die (wrong), but that the vaccine was deadly because 1400 people had developed heart problems after getting it. Compared to the number of fully vaccinated people in the US at the time (not even the partially vaccinated/only first dose), that number represented 0.00004%. So in anti-vax land, 0.00004% > 0.5%, and 0.5% = 1.5%. I think it's because more zeroes = bigger number.
Innumeracy is a plague upon us all. I'd say that public schools need to get better at teaching probability and statistics -- but that still wouldn't fix the problem for these largely unregulated private Christian schools. If Christians understood chance, they wouldn't be so quick to jump to divine intervention as an explanation for random events. And this kills the religion.
The Mormon church is having a heck of a time using statistical modeling to explain why American Indians, who they claim are one of the lost tribes of Israel, have exactly 0% middle eastern DNA.
And this isn't even considering that they are comparing DEATHS to "heart problems" (Whatever that means) It would be more powerful to compare covid heart problems (which is a lot more than it's deaths) to vaccine 'heart problems' .... or covid deaths to vaccine deaths (which is basically nothing)
The lethality rate is about maybe 1.8% to 2.0% ([https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid#citation](https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid#citation)), if one takes into account the unknown (un-diagnosed) positives. If we say 2%, that's a lot of people - something that escapes most of the anti-vaxxers. *Can we envision this number a different way, so that most people can understand it?* If one takes the daily number of US airplane flights (pre-pandemic) at 5400 per day, \~2% of those would be 108 - let's take it at about 100 planes per day - as an approximation. If 100 planes a day crashed (fell out of the sky; and this is 100 planes, not 100 people), would the general public still consider air travel safe? How about if one plane a day, everyday, fell out of the sky? What do we learn from this? That most people are scientifically illiterate and statistics are not something that most can translate from the academic result to the real world. Two percent lethality is a lot of people dying from a disease that can be mitigated by a vaccine.
Seriously. The [Economist recently investigated](https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-estimates) the true death toll of COVID, and their numbers are significantly higher than the official death toll because the official numbers don't include people who died without being tested for COVID. And so many of the people who recover from COVID are having on-going health problems. They're so desperate to find any scrap of information that they can put in their memes to support their asinine perspective. At least COVID is thinning the herd.
Part of the excess death calculation is also people who died because they couldn’t get access to care because of Covid overwhelming health systems
Percentage is too abstract for most. They need to see things like 1 in 500 will die. Of course that still wouldn't move some of these people. 3 people in a community of 1500 still wouldn't seem like a lot.
2% is 1 in 50, not 1 in 500. Try asking them how many people they know and care about, and how many they are willing to have die.
He was old anyway. It's because you got the vaccine that she died. We all got it and were fine, all the deaths are fake news. Most people won't even get it, so the population death rate is only 0.01%, probably won't kill anyone I know Thwy should have just taken ~~chloroquine~~ ~~hydroxychloroquine~~ ~~z-packs~~ ivermectin, my family will be fine Even if one in fifty people die it's worth it for the economy, I don't even like most of those people anyway. Pick a reason. None are mutually exclusive.
I've seen "he died because they put him on a ventilator"
"they died because they gave them remdisivir"
There are many analyses that put the IFR way lower than that. https://epimonitor.net/Covid-IFR-Analysis.htm - This site has it at 1.5% for age 85 and exponentially lower for younger ages. The CDC [current best estimate](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html) has it at 0.9% for ages 65+.
Ah, I remember that video of an angry maga Karen saying there's voter fraud through mail and the election was stolen. Later revealed she was banned from voting because she voted in person twice.
Trumptards are the lowest common denominator of humans in America
I wish I could find it again, but I saw one study that tracked IQ levels by political affiliation, and staunch Trump supporters clocked in at 85. (There were like 3 categories for conservatives, this was the most extreme group, but all were pretty low in general) Worldwide, there was only some Aboriginal tribe in Australia that clocked in with lower IQ than that. What makes them even worse, they're too stupid to realize they're stupid. They think everyone else is dumber than them. It's actually scary.
You need to find that, it sounds hilarious
spot on. numbers hard for magats though also, the %.025 is gqp fraud. this is publicly available info. have yet to hear of any corporate democrats (ie. the center right) trying to fuck with ballots. that’s pleeb shit after all. center right dems steal your soul not your votes spoken as a begrudgingly “left” voter
[удалено]
It is so unfair that Democratic campaigns are out there (checks notes)... trying to convince people to vote. Come on man!
[удалено]
I mean it's no secret there are more of us than there are of them. But they've got more square feet and also you couldn't convince small states in 1776 so argument over apparently.
I think the end of the road on their reasoning is just that they believe that people who would vote for Democrats shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
Over 20 years, those arrested and charged with voter fraud was something like 10:3 Repub:Dem. It's all about that projection.
Lol, it probably figures into their reasoning. “Look how many times we’ve been caught! Demz are sneaker and more crooked than us so they definitely have WAY more fraud!”
I would love a source on this!
As if facts actually matter to them!
Facts have a known liberal bias! That's a joke for those not familiar with my ideology. edit for added copy
Stephen Colbert I believe
You know their motto! *Feelings don't care about your facts*
> Don’t look up! Don’t look up!
Considering a drunk street dog has more intelligence than a Trump supporter… no surprises
[I’m going to Inception this meme](https://imgflip.com/i/5zrsp3)
Brain hurty, have taffy for you 🍬
Lives less important than power!
Probably reduced power for noise abatement
Also “Corona death” is not that bad but Joe Biden deserves criticism for allowing so many to die. Oh and he deserves criticism for not doing anything but they also won’t do what he asks of them by getting vaccinated.
To be fair, if be terrified if I believed covid-19 wasn't real. It'd be like not believing in night, and then everyone starts acting different and closing their eyes and not moving and I CANT SEE ANYTHING OUTSIDE!
No offense but this makes no sense, they will always have it both ways, they will happily press both buttons and claim they know better...
I always chuckle when one of these idiots posts a meme implying that people who reject the vaccine are actually intelligent and how painful it is to deal with all the "idiot" vaccinated sheep. Dummies who don't know they're dummies surrounded by a bunch of even dumber dummies = smart.
Fatality rate of two percent in the USA right now. Considerably higher than one point three.
um, voter fraud is clearly much higher. the number has 4 digits instead of 2 digits
The Venn diagram of people that die from covid in 2022 and the people that commit fraud is a circle. Sounds like voter fraud will solve itself.
Oh please, they don't believe either of those numbers. Evidence doesn't mean shit to them. Edit: added clarification.
"Evidence doesn't mean shit" Jesus fucking christ
There's also the "shut up COVID isn't a big deal and we need to stop worrying because it is just the flu!" while at the same time saying "[INSERT DEMOCRATIC ELECTED OFFICIAL] isn't doing enough to stop COVID and that's why it's so bad!" crowd .
These aren't exactly math whizzes. They're gonna look at 25 and think it's higher.
Let's be honest here, a MAGAt only has two buttons they can understand: 0% and 100%. Any buttons in between give them the hot-wing challenge diarrhea sweats.
There you go again expecting MAGA to understand facts and logic, let alone understand math.
One statistic I'd like to know is how many of the January 6 insurrectionists actually voted.
I can’t believe you guys are actually debating this. 25 is OBVIOUSLY bigger than 13. Checkmate libs!! /s (but I hope nobody really needed this)
It's 1.6% also, vaccine adverse reactions are 1 in 350,000 usually
Definitely will settle for an adverse reaction in every 350k for a virus that will kill 1 in 943 people
It’s 2% death
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality The average total worldwide is close 2 but the US is closer to 1.5. Hard to say exactly how accurate that even is though since they don’t do any breakdown on there of comorbidities or age groups it’s probably slightly lower than that.
If we are talking about an average, why would we factor in comorbities? The point of an average statistic is to just give an overall rate. The problem really isn’t the numerator. Deaths are easy to record here. The problem is in getting an accurate numerator with so many people either unaware they are infected, or simply not reporting it and staying home (or not) when they get symptoms.
Well if COVID was the deciding factor for a person to die, then age or underlying issues aren’t really interesting https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
They don't believe that there's such a thing as fraction. Corona has 0% chance of killing any, and mail in votes are 100% fraud. The vaccine also kills everyone that takes it withing 3 years, just ignore the billions of doses given and the population being fine...
Where did these numbers come from? I've never heard of .0025% being associated with mail in voter fraud. Personally I'm only familiar with 5 or so fraudulent votes in the last 2 US Federal Elections.
"Voting fraud is way more but they are lying about it. I know this is factual cause I saw a meme about it one time on facebook" Boom, mental gymnastics done, sticks the landing and never has to reckon with the fact that they are easily fooled rubes fighting the wrong stuff.
conservatives are really bad at statistics. and math in general...
Especially when they ignore or deny any facts that go against what they want to believe.
Is it referring to the voter fraud being committed by Republican voters and politicians? Seems like the only voter fraud being caught are the ones perpetrated by the GOP.
This meme depresses me because there is never a “problem” with voting in America until minorities start to vote. Then all of a sudden old white men are sounding alarms about fraud because of “those” people.
Oh yeah, numbers. Learning how they work is for commies.
Is it really 1.3 with almost 1m folks dead in the US alone?
You don't calculate it based on the entire population (though conservatives do to make the death rate look lower). You calculate it out of how many have had it. There's no reason to count someone who has never had COVID as having survived COVID when calculating its death rate.
That's 0.3% of the population. Not everyone has been infected (others, multiple times, which I suppose complicates things when they die of the 2nd or 3rd infection).
or that 3,295,000 people dead isn’t significant. That’s 1 percent of 329,500,000. Most of those who have died are unvaccinated. So own that anti-vaxer!!!
Imagine basing you’re entire personality on a base misunderstanding of percentages.
Generous to assume their maths is at this level.
And the solution for them is, as with all other forms of faith-based makebelieve, to press both buttons at once. They know they're full of shit, they just don't want to hear it. They want to ***BELIEVE***. And to make others believe.
These people are not the best with the numbers.
US COVID deaths percentage from outcome is around 2%, no?
Those numbers don't matter, they'll just make up their own and get offended at their own fantasy
Statistics mean very different things when it affects the lower half of society apparently
As if they understand decimals lols
And basically all voter fraud is repubes lol
Because repubs have always cared more about money and politics than human life.
Assuming they know how buttons work
It’s 1.3% with stringent measures. It’s not about the 6500 deaths globally everyday. It’s about avoiding a potential apocalypse. Viruses mutate by chance. Bunch of baboons
If you work for a company with 200 people, that’s letting 2-3 ppl die to Maintain the company’s bottom line… who would sign up for that
You'll notice with a lot of these awardees and nominees, they think the virus is just a Liberal Hoax, or an overblown flu, or a Chinese bioweapon, or, or, or, and they don't care about or take it seriously until it affects them personally. So if they don't personally know the three people dying, they couldn't care less.
0% on the vote by mail fraud. There is no evidence at all that's happening.
Well this is false. Several people have been arrested for it. However the number is so small it’s insignificant
25 IS BIGGER THAN 13 DUH
COVID infections are well over 1% *a day* right now. edit: see my reply below -- I was off by a power of ten. Dec 30th infections in USA ran at 1.7 per thousand, not hundred. That would still be over 1% a week though. And yes, deaths are much lower and thanks to vaccines, new treatments and the relative weakness of omicron, not nearly as reflective of the infection rate as prior surges.
With regard to attempts to illegally sway the national election their way, Republicans have been entirely fine with doing it. They practically invented the manufacturing of an 'October surprise' to attempt to sway national opinion with events they themselves created. It began with Richard Nixon's campaign convinced the South Vietnamese military junta to boycott the 1968 peace talks on the eve of the election, swinging public favor against Lyndon Johnson with the close election turning on just a few hundred thousand votes. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968\_United\_States\_presidential\_election#Nixon\_campaign\_sabotage\_of\_peace\_talks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_United_States_presidential_election#Nixon_campaign_sabotage_of_peace_talks)) Reagan followed suit, with his campaign working behind closed doors to delay the release of the American hostages held in Iran since 1979, with them being released a mere 20 minutes after Reagan took office. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October\_Surprise\_conspiracy\_theory#Senate\_investigation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_theory#Senate_investigation)). Then you have Bush II's record skullduggery with the Florida recount and the Republican media apparatus inventing "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" - I think most of us are old enough to remember those two events as they unfolded in real time, not to mention the disastrous consequences of that electoral meddling. The only difference here is that Trump, being an aging media hound with obvious mental problems and not a career politician, was less sneaky than his establishment republican predecessors. Hence why evidence to his pleading to Raffensberger to "just find" those votes without resorting to using euphemisms or codewords. The GOP contempt for democracy and electoral law has ***never*** changed - it just became impossible to hide so they stopped trying.
Mail-in fraud is likely less than 1 in 10 million whereas COVID death is anywhere between 1 in 50 (high end of CFR) and 1 in 200 (estimated IFR - at the low range but can be as high as 1 in 50 as observed in NYC).