3 ms·

Thank God 99% of all the other countries were in on it otherwise they would have looked really foolish as one of the only countries without lockdowns.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
hospitalJail 3y ago
[flagged]
- Zetobal 3y ago
  Go ahead.
  - hospitalJail 3y ago
    EDIT: Disclaimer, this was for one of the most principled politicians I've ever met. To this day, he will say he is an anarchist in public. (Although, he would say it in a pleasurable way) Sure, so to change 0.5% of the vote, we would find people with demographics that people vote for. For instance, if there is a women on the ballot, run another women because at least 0.5% of people vote for a women, so this splits the vote. Or find someone with similar/same names, bonus points if their signage only has their last name. Anyone with the enemy's yard sign, gets the negative ad. Each neg ad was tested considerably. There is a huge database of every voter, their petitions they signed, odds of being dem/gop, odds of voting, their pet names(if registered), etc... You go up to someone's house knowing they support guns because they signed a petition. Heck, the candidate would pretend they remembered the dog's name from a few years ago. Lying and plausible deniability is like a daily thing. Looking back on it, I would have been sacrificed in a second for putting neg ads in people's mailboxes illegally. Those are some heavy hitters. I feel like I forgot like 2 major stomach churning events, maybe I blocked them out. (Oh gosh, when I went to the enemy's campaign rally and put neg ads on everyone's cars, got followed by their staff, jumped over a fence/bush area to escape...) Okay, I'm only missing 1 stomach churning event from my memory. I think it was strategy related, maybe it had to do with old people.
    - bena 3y ago
      Well, if you said it, it must be true and we must accept these anecdotes as the complete truth and you as the best source of it.
      - George83728 3y ago
        Well since you've responded sarcastically, it must be debunked.
        bena 3y ago
        There's nothing to debunk. That's the entire point. He's trying to prop up his claims with more claims. If we cannot determine the veracity of his anecdotes, they are of no use to us in determining the validity of his conclusions. His entire response could be boiled down to "Trust me, bro". I get the feeling he knows he cannot defend his position based on either commonly known information or on reasoning about the situation. So he has to purport to have special information that most don't. And that special information, which you cannot have, is enough to turn everything around. But he also won't give you enough information to independently verify. He won't tell you which campaigns he did these things for, which politicians he worked for. But they were top men. Top. Men.
        hospitalJail 3y ago
        You guys have convinced me that Democrats ignore scientists and Republicans listen to scientists. Thank you for teaching me the party of Science and Data.
        bena 3y ago
        We've "convinced" you of the thing you came into this thread with. Or is this just a thinly veiled attempt at making others backtrack their words or apologize for impugning your integrity? If you were truly concerned with "Science and Data", you would realize that vague, unverifiable anecdotes are only persuasive to those who are already persuaded. They are not a valid way to make a point.
- jjoonathan 3y ago
  The Dems didn't make Trump bet everything on "ignore it and it will go away." He could have pushed for public health measures in February 2020 ("Stop the China Virus, wear a MAGA mask!"). He didn't. He squandered the opportunity to use gentle R reduction, so we had to jump to strong R reduction with lockdowns. I know that following the science doesn't come naturally to Republicans, but this is basic shit. If you had figured it out then, you wouldn't need to be on Trump daiper duty in 2023.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

hospitalJail 3y ago

[flagged]

Zetobal 3y ago
Go ahead.
- hospitalJail 3y ago
  EDIT: Disclaimer, this was for one of the most principled politicians I've ever met. To this day, he will say he is an anarchist in public. (Although, he would say it in a pleasurable way) Sure, so to change 0.5% of the vote, we would find people with demographics that people vote for. For instance, if there is a women on the ballot, run another women because at least 0.5% of people vote for a women, so this splits the vote. Or find someone with similar/same names, bonus points if their signage only has their last name. Anyone with the enemy's yard sign, gets the negative ad. Each neg ad was tested considerably. There is a huge database of every voter, their petitions they signed, odds of being dem/gop, odds of voting, their pet names(if registered), etc... You go up to someone's house knowing they support guns because they signed a petition. Heck, the candidate would pretend they remembered the dog's name from a few years ago. Lying and plausible deniability is like a daily thing. Looking back on it, I would have been sacrificed in a second for putting neg ads in people's mailboxes illegally. Those are some heavy hitters. I feel like I forgot like 2 major stomach churning events, maybe I blocked them out. (Oh gosh, when I went to the enemy's campaign rally and put neg ads on everyone's cars, got followed by their staff, jumped over a fence/bush area to escape...) Okay, I'm only missing 1 stomach churning event from my memory. I think it was strategy related, maybe it had to do with old people.
  - bena 3y ago
    Well, if you said it, it must be true and we must accept these anecdotes as the complete truth and you as the best source of it.
    - George83728 3y ago
      Well since you've responded sarcastically, it must be debunked.
      - bena 3y ago
        There's nothing to debunk. That's the entire point. He's trying to prop up his claims with more claims. If we cannot determine the veracity of his anecdotes, they are of no use to us in determining the validity of his conclusions. His entire response could be boiled down to "Trust me, bro". I get the feeling he knows he cannot defend his position based on either commonly known information or on reasoning about the situation. So he has to purport to have special information that most don't. And that special information, which you cannot have, is enough to turn everything around. But he also won't give you enough information to independently verify. He won't tell you which campaigns he did these things for, which politicians he worked for. But they were top men. Top. Men.
        hospitalJail 3y ago
        You guys have convinced me that Democrats ignore scientists and Republicans listen to scientists. Thank you for teaching me the party of Science and Data.
        bena 3y ago
        We've "convinced" you of the thing you came into this thread with. Or is this just a thinly veiled attempt at making others backtrack their words or apologize for impugning your integrity? If you were truly concerned with "Science and Data", you would realize that vague, unverifiable anecdotes are only persuasive to those who are already persuaded. They are not a valid way to make a point.
jjoonathan 3y ago
The Dems didn't make Trump bet everything on "ignore it and it will go away." He could have pushed for public health measures in February 2020 ("Stop the China Virus, wear a MAGA mask!"). He didn't. He squandered the opportunity to use gentle R reduction, so we had to jump to strong R reduction with lockdowns. I know that following the science doesn't come naturally to Republicans, but this is basic shit. If you had figured it out then, you wouldn't need to be on Trump daiper duty in 2023.