***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[ICE CITY CF]

Kind of hard to laugh at this but

 

[dwalk31]

Why does it seem obvious to you? Is more always better? How are you comparing testing in different countries? Why is it so difficult for you to answer these questions?

The fact that you feel it's important to clarify that your initial statement makes sense to you while refusing to explain it so that it can make sense to others really highlights how you don't post here to have a discussion. You're acknowledging that what matters to you is what you say and not how it actually contributes to the discussion.

Honestly your questions seem rhetorical. But if you need it broken down further, here goes. The link I posted details the importance of testing. I am posting a picture of it below:

This shows why testing is important. Based on this, more testing helps to do the things listed better than less testing.

Better, the word I used, means more favorable.

Obvious means clear.

To me it is clear that since testing is important, a greater number of test is generally more favorable than a lower number of tests.

I legit don’t know how to break it down further than that.

That answers your first question.

To answer your second question, I think more is generally better than less testing. As I said before, there may be some exception with a lower number of targeted testing. So there may be times when more is not “always” better.

To answer your third question, I compared the data as it relates to the number of tests given in various countries based on the link given.

To your fourth question, answering those questions isn’t difficult. I thought all of that was pretty self-explanatory so I didn’t realize that you needed it broken down in that manner, but I hope that was helpful.

 

[IATT]

 

[IATT]

 

[IATT]

 

[RustyShackleford]

Thoughts and prayers

In all seriousness, this is horrible and I hope dude can come back from this.

 

[dwalk31]

Will be interesting to hear Biden’s running mate announcement this week.

My prediction is Warren. I will be pleasantly surprised if he picks Harris.

 

[boris]

Honestly your questions seem rhetorical. But if you need it broken down further, here goes. The link I posted details the importance of testing. I am posting a picture of it below:

This shows why testing is important. Based on this, more testing helps to do the things listed better than less testing.

Better, the word I used, means more favorable.

Obvious means clear.

To me it is clear that since testing is important, a greater number of test is generally more favorable than a lower number of tests.

I legit don’t know how to break it down further than that.

That answers your first question.

To answer your second question, I think more is generally better than less testing. As I said before, there may be some exception with a lower number of targeted testing. So there may be times when more is not “always” better.

To answer your third question, I compared the data as it relates to the number of tests given in various countries based on the link given.

To your fourth question, answering those questions isn’t difficult. I thought all of that was pretty self-explanatory so I didn’t realize that you needed it broken down in that manner, but I hope that was helpful.

I'm not sure why you felt the need to explain the importance of testing, or define the words "better" and "obvious".

The only metric that you used to compare testing in different countries is the total number of tests administered? That's it? You don't mention quality, reliability, the time it takes to get the results, or the total cost. You have made the general conclusion that more testing must be better.

Is more testing better if the tests are unreliable? Is more testing better if people are waiting long periods of time to find out if they're infected?

 

[dwalk31]

I'm not sure why you felt the need to explain the importance of testing, or define the words "better" and "obvious".

The only metric that you used to compare testing in different countries is the total number of tests administered? That's it? You don't mention quality, reliability, the time it takes to get the results, or the total cost. You have made the general conclusion that more testing must be better.

Is more testing better if the tests are unreliable? Is more testing better if people are waiting long periods of time to find out if they're infected?

Again are these rhetorical questions?

Yes to your first two questions—I’ve said that several times.

I stated what I thought generally and I gave my reason.

There are certainly exceptions.

To answer your last two questions:

If tests are unreliable, then—no—the amount of the unreliable tests wouldn’t make it better or worse in my opinion.

Yes, I think waiting long periods for more tests is better than waiting long periods for less tests.

 

[IATT]

 

[frshstunna]

I just had had to cut this one joint off this weekend...Met her in a Publix parking lot and the 1st time we linked in June she told me that she used to believe “All lives matter” until the recent protests...I shoulda deaded it then but I figured she changed for the better and the cheekz was callin me

So speaking of testing and all that we went to pick up some wings on Friday and shorty went on a rant bout having to wear a mask because of “all the testing making corona a big deal” n she was dead *** serious all mad n ****...Soon as she finished that sentence it all clicked and realized shorty a legit conservative , wild part is she’s educated and has a Doctor title for her job but some of her takes straight from a Montana truck drivers twitter feed....I can put aepps20 on if he trying add a new one to the team tho

 

[aepps20]

I just had had to cut this one joint off this weekend...Met her in a Publix parking lot and the 1st time we linked in June she told me that she used to believe “All lives matter” until the recent protests...I shoulda deaded it then but I figured she changed for the better and the cheekz was callin me

So speaking of testing and all that we went to pick up some wings on Friday and shorty went on a rant bout having to wear a mask because of “all the testing making corona a big deal” n she was dead *** serious all mad n ****...Soon as she finished that sentence it all clicked and realized shorty a legit conservative , wild part is she’s educated and has a Doctor title for her job but some of her takes straight from a Montana truck drivers twitter feed....I can put aepps20 on if he trying add a new one to the team tho

PLEASE SEND THEM DIGITS.

 

[frshstunna]

PLEASE SEND THEM DIGITS.

 

[stuntman mike]

posted in the other thread but someone i know had bad symptoms and got tested last night and they said the results will be in 3-10 days. how the **** are we THIS far along in the USA and results are taking DAYS?! da **** good is that?!!

 

[boris]

Again are these rhetorical questions?

Yes to your first two questions—I’ve said that several times.

I stated what I thought generally and I gave my reason.

There are certainly exceptions.

To answer your last two questions:

If tests are unreliable, then—no—the amount of the unreliable tests wouldn’t make it better or worse in my opinion.

Yes, I think waiting long periods for more tests is better than waiting long periods for less tests.

They aren't rhetorical at all. I wanted to be sure that you used very little information to draw a pretty big conclusion.

 

[boris]

posted in the other thread but someone i know had bad symptoms and got tested last night and they said the results will be in 3-10 days. how the **** are we THIS far along in the USA and results are taking DAYS?! da **** good is that?!!

Yeah, my work won't start quarantining people until there's a positive test. This means that people are potentially walking around spreading the virus in the time it takes to get the results. But dwalk says more testing is better so what do I know.

 

[storm2006]

I just had had to cut this one joint off this weekend...Met her in a Publix parking lot and the 1st time we linked in June she told me that she used to believe “All lives matter” until the recent protests...I shoulda deaded it then but I figured she changed for the better and the cheekz was callin me

So speaking of testing and all that we went to pick up some wings on Friday and shorty went on a rant bout having to wear a mask because of “all the testing making corona a big deal” n she was dead *** serious all mad n ****...Soon as she finished that sentence it all clicked and realized shorty a legit conservative , wild part is she’s educated and has a Doctor title for her job but some of her takes straight from a Montana truck drivers twitter feed....I can put aepps20 on if he trying add a new one to the team tho

I hate to ask this but what race was she? I always try to get a feel for a yambs political leanings based on their profiles before swiping to avoid these situations.

I have in my profile "I'm a very stable genius"and appreciate the yambs who get the reference because then they usually go off on DJT and I know we're good to go on that front

 

[frshstunna]

I hate to ask this but what race was she? I always try to get a feel for a yambs political leanings based on their profiles before swiping to avoid these situations.

I have in my profile "I'm a very stable genius"and appreciate the yambs who get the reference because then they usually go off on DJT and I know we're good to go on that front

Black joint from Birmingham, Alabama ...I wish I woulda seen a profile of shorty cuz she probly woulda had conservative on there and coulda saved me the headache early

The political values matter to me cuz I’m not a arguing or trying to changing minds Type of person , so I dip out if we not on the same type of time off top

 

[whywesteppin]

PLEASE SEND THEM DIGITS.

 

[Deleted member 42060]

Andrew Cuomo is not your friend...

This 3rd term clown has to go, and also de Blasio .

 

[Belgium]

 

[Deleted member 42060]

Literally looks like a mannequin or a Madame Tussauds one.

 

[Deleted member 42060]

I'm tired of these so-called "scientists" and "experts" trying to "analyze" the coronavirus response. As if learning how we messed up is supposed to change anything.

Sure they were saying all along that Trump was doing the wrong thing and now they've been proven right but I'm not going to admit I'm an ignorant buffoon. Fact is, those bum scientists probably time traveled or used some other cheat code to embarrass my president.

Maybe he made some mistakes, like not recognizing in January that this was a real pandemic and right away ramping up production of hydroxychloroquine. Or not instituting Marshall's law right away to silence the media and imprison all those mumbo jumbo academics with their "data" and "studies" and hokus pokus predictions (aka Monday morning quarterbacking).

Let's quit looking to a magical entity like Fraudci or scientists for how to fix our problems and let's start praying more and asking Jesus to bless Trump. Because, look, at the end of the day, I might be a fool, or I might be a troll, but I am definitely not going to try to understand data.

 

[Nike Jordan]

 

[Upptempo]

Donald Trump got some ugly *** genes because neither of his kid's mothers are unattractive and out of his 4 adult children, 3 of them are ugly as shh