Is this the beginning of the end for Trump ?

[watisthis]

And you are surprised that the US has more cases than any other country?

No, I bet it has nothing to do with how poorly we handled the information we had back in Nov. 19. We could not possibly have been better off if we took this seriously from the start. We either take appropriate action and do enough to thwart a catastrophe and people say we did too much, or we don't and people will die. It isn't a hard choice when you've got morals.

We are one of the largest countries, the most diverse, the only one with 50 autonomous states that dictate their own economic/health policies.

Weird, if only there was some sort of central authority and leadership. I'm sure everything would be great without agencies like the CDC, FDA, EPA, SEC, etc

Like, who do you think takes charge in a national emergency or in national security interests?

Again, it's bizarre that someone is so desperate to prove others wrong/claim they are right, that they actually go back pages on a thread (in a forum about mustangs, no less!) to see what someone posted months ago during the midst of an unprecedented pandemic.

I use facts and make educated hypotheses, you make off the cuff assumptions based on emotion as noted by your June 5th foolish claim.

What a sad existence you must lead.

Pot meet kettle? Don't care to really rebuttal, the fact is you make foolish opinions without any logical reason.

Sponsored

 

[rick81721]

No, I bet it has nothing to do with how poorly we handled the information we had back in Nov. 19. We could not possibly have been better off if we took this seriously from the start. We either take appropriate action and do enough to thwart a catastrophe and people say we did too much, or we don't and people will die. It isn't a hard choice when you've got morals.

Back in November? You are again confused, China first reported cases of covid end of December. And we took actions immediately to thwart catastrophe - remember the predictions of millions dead? And news flash, people die no matter what is done - there is no stopping a global pandemic - we flattened the curve initially, cases burned out in the northeastern states which handled it poorly, hence their highest death rates.

Weird, if only there was some sort of central authority and leadership. I'm sure everything would be great without agencies like the CDC, FDA, EPA, SEC, etc

Like, who do you think takes charge in a national emergency or in national security interests?

More ignorance spouted. Fed government gives guidance, which is exactly what the task force led by Fauci, Brix, Redfield, etc did. The feds have no authority to shut down or open up state businesses, schools, etc.

I use facts and make educated hypotheses, you make off the cuff assumptions based on emotion as noted by your June 5th foolish claim.

Laughable, You simply do not understand the science involved here, it is painfully obvious. The fact that you had to go back months to find one thing I claimed "wrong" demonstrates your childishness. Sad!

 

[watisthis]

Back in November? You are again confused, China first reported cases of covid end of December. And we took actions immediately to thwart catastrophe - remember the predictions of millions dead? And news flash, people die no matter what is done - there is no stopping a global pandemic - we flattened the curve initially, cases burned out in the northeastern states which handled it poorly, hence their highest death rates.

"Late November-December 2019: U.S. intelligence agencies warn of a “cataclysmic” and “out-of-control” disease in Wuhan, China."

https://www.justsecurity.org/69650/timeline-of-the-coronavirus-pandemic-and-u-s-response/

We took plenty of actions to deflect the seriousness of the virus. Yes, the projection was wrong that is how projections and hypotheses work, what don't you get? Yes, people do die, we might as well just forget planning and preparing for anything because you know there's a chance we might not prevent it. I wonder what else you think we're better off without, as we're all just going to die anyway, no stopping that.

It is no wonder you're so adamant about how poorly things are going, you seemingly do not care if things had gone better at all.

More ignorance spouted. Fed government gives guidance, which is exactly what the task force led by Fauci, Brix, Redfield, etc did. The feds have no authority to shut down or open up state businesses, schools, etc.

The Fed uses its power to lend money and services to states which is an extreme simplification. Do you not remember what the Fed did during every other natural disaster or national emergency? Yes, states can do more, but states were hobbled by the lack of federal response.

I didn't say the fed had the authority to shut down state businesses. The fed can leverage its funding and influence to sway states to get in line with such things as the commerce clause, but it is ultimately up to the states. However, only idiots would forgo federal assistance when they are under-equipped to handle an emergency. And only an idiot would not use the federal gov't to help under-equipped states because he has a grudge with the governors.

Laughable, You simply do not understand the science involved here, it is painfully obvious. The fact that you had to go back months to find one thing I claimed "wrong" demonstrates your childishness. Sad!

The science? What science did you use to make up such a foolish claim?

"Wrong" were you not incorrect? It took me like a min to find your post, it would have taken you just as long to do research before posting something so stupid. That is where this all stems from, you fail to do the proper research prior to opening your mouth, this is why we're in the position we're in now too many people being nincompoops thinking they know better than every professional.

I thought you were done? Promises, promises.

 

[rick81721]

The science? What science did you use to make up such a foolish claim?

It was a prediction based on the evidence at the time. Here is the IHME model from June 8:

New cases/day had peaked in early April and daily deaths/day peaked in mid-April, which by the way will be the peak for deaths/day for this pandemic in the US (another prediction - please go back and look for this in another 2 months!). But again, I don't expect you to understand any of this - you never did and never will.

It took me like a min to find your post,

Good lord what a lie - you went back 30+ pages. Tho I see now why you are so deranged, that was when we had that silly argument about protests and you kept making a fool out of yourself. No wonder you went back to very beginning of a thread that I haven't even looked at in months to find something to crow "Look, you were wrong!" about. Such a petty, sad person, but if finding something I posted 2 months ago "wrong" makes your day, have at it! Adios!

 

[watisthis]

It was a prediction based on the evidence at the time. Here is the IHME model from June 8:

New cases/day had peaked in early April and daily deaths/day peaked in mid-April, which by the way will be the peak for deaths/day for this pandemic in the US (another prediction - please go back and look for this in another 2 months!). But again, I don't expect you to understand any of this - you never did and never will.

https://www.sydney.edu.au/content/d...l_accuracy_covid19_predictions_ihme_model.pdf

I doubt you'll read that so here's a very brief summary.

"The key findings are:

• In excess of 70% of US states had actual death rates falling outside the 95% prediction interval for that state, (see Figure 1)

• The ability of the model to make accurate predictions decreases with increasing amount of data. (figure 2)
  
  
• Improved predictive modelling needed for adequate provision of ventilators, PPE, medical staff at a local level

Our results suggest that the IHME model substantially underestimates the uncertainty associated with COVID19 death count predictions. We would expect to see approximately 5% of the observed number of deaths to fall outside the 95% prediction intervals. In reality, we found that the observed percentage of death counts that lie outside the 95% PI to be in the range 49% - 73%, which is more than an order of magnitude above the expected percentage."


Point 2 is the hallmark of a bad model, they're overfitting. Never let data get in the way of a good model, lmao. Like their most egregious example is them predicting Italy having so few deaths.

Moreover, the performance accuracy of the model does not improve as the forecast horizon decreases. They have made notable updates to their predictions since then most notable in computing errors.

Good lord what a lie - you went back 30+ pages. Tho I see now why you are so deranged, that was when we had that silly argument about protests and you kept making a fool out of yourself. No wonder you went back to very beginning of a thread that I haven't even looked at in months to find something to crow "Look, you were wrong!" about. Such a petty, sad person, but if finding something I posted 2 months ago "wrong" makes your day, have at it! Adios!

You must be new to the internet. I recommend learning what and how to use a search feature.

 

[rick81721]

https://www.sydney.edu.au/content/d...l_accuracy_covid19_predictions_ihme_model.pdf

I doubt you'll read that so here's a very brief summary.

"The key findings are:

• In excess of 70% of US states had actual death rates falling outside the 95% prediction interval for that state, (see Figure 1)

• The ability of the model to make accurate predictions decreases with increasing amount of data. (figure 2)
  
  
• Improved predictive modelling needed for adequate provision of ventilators, PPE, medical staff at a local level

Our results suggest that the IHME model substantially underestimates the uncertainty associated with COVID19 death count predictions. We would expect to see approximately 5% of the observed number of deaths to fall outside the 95% prediction intervals. In reality, we found that the observed percentage of death counts that lie outside the 95% PI to be in the range 49% - 73%, which is more than an order of magnitude above the expected percentage."


Point 2 is the hallmark of a bad model, they're overfitting. Never let data get in the way of a good model, lmao. Like their most egregious example is them predicting Italy having so few deaths.

Moreover, the performance accuracy of the model does not improve as the forecast horizon decreases. They have made notable updates to their predictions since then most notable in computing errors.

You dig up an article published early april to refute one of the major model's prediction from early June? Seriously? Good lord, how idiotic. Thanks for confirming the obvious, that you cannot comprehend any of this.

You must be new to the internet. I recommend learning what and how to use a search feature.

Look kid, I'm probably twice your age. I've been on internet boards/forums for as long as you have been alive. I've encountered clowns like you many times - someone who goes back dozens of pages to find one thing you posted wrong and then call it out weeks or months later is a classic sign of a loser in life. Someone so desperate to win at anything, they delude themselves into thinking winning an argument with total strangers on a forum somehow makes them a winner. But to do this with someone who hasn't even interacted with anything you've posted in months is worse than juvenile and petty, it's pathological. You have serious issues. No wonder CDC recently reported that 25% of people your age have contemplated suicide during this pandemic - your behavior here is a huge red flag.

Feel free to respond all you like, or try to find other "wrong" predictions/comments I've posted here. This is my last response to you, I won't feed an unstable stalker and self-described troll any further. Do yourself a favor and seek help!

 

[watisthis]

You dig up an article published early april to refute one of the major model's prediction from early June? Seriously? Good lord, how idiotic. Thanks for confirming the obvious, that you cannot comprehend any of this.

By all means, prove them wrong. I gave you the research and you're able to disprove it or not. Sounds to me like you're deflecting because you don't like doing the work.

Look kid, I'm probably twice your age. I've been on internet boards/forums for as long as you have been alive. I've encountered clowns like you many times - someone who goes back dozens of pages to find one thing you posted wrong and then call it out weeks or months later is a classic sign of a loser in life. Someone so desperate to win at anything, they delude themselves into thinking winning an argument with total strangers on a forum somehow makes them a winner. But to do this with someone who hasn't even interacted with anything you've posted in months is worse than juvenile and petty, it's pathological. You have serious issues. No wonder CDC recently reported that 25% of people your age have contemplated suicide during this pandemic - your behavior here is a huge red flag.

Feel free to respond all you like, or try to find other "wrong" predictions/comments I've posted here. This is my last response to you, I won't feed an unstable stalker and self-described troll any further. Do yourself a favor and seek help!

Lmao! All of this because you don't understand how to use the search feature. Literally takes secs to find use a phase and a username to find a post, get smarter boomer.

 

[94Mustang302ci]

After years of work, Mr. Mueller found dozens of contacts between Trump associates and Russian-connected actors, evidence that the Trump campaign welcomed the Kremlin’s attempts to sabotage the election and “expected it would benefit electorally” from the hacking and dumping of Democratic emails.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...-p-led-senate-panel/ar-BB186rlv?ocid=msedgntp

 

[watisthis]

After years of work, Mr. Mueller found dozens of contacts between Trump associates and Russian-connected actors, evidence that the Trump campaign welcomed the Kremlin’s attempts to sabotage the election and “expected it would benefit electorally” from the hacking and dumping of Democratic emails.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...-p-led-senate-panel/ar-BB186rlv?ocid=msedgntp

Oh, yeah, there's a lot. https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf

 

[Burkey]

Arthur wins comment of the day.

 

[Burkey]

Oh, yeah, there's a lot. https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf

Is there an abbreviated version? 966 pages seems a bit heavy

 

[watisthis]

Is there an abbreviated version? 966 pages seems a bit heavy

The gist of it is: Trump's administration solicited, welcomed and benefited from Russian interference.

Manafort got in contact with GRU to help Trump
GRU successfully hack DNC emails
Trump admits to sexual assault on tape
Roger Stone and Trump collude with Wikileaks to distract from the previous statement
Wikileaks release emails they have stolen from the Clinton team (related to step 2), in the report its stated that Wiki is actually a front for GRU covert ops.
While the GRU and Wiki were releasding hacked documents, Trump's campaign sought to maximize the impact of those materials to make sure Trump was elected. To do so, the Trump campaign took action to obtain advanced notice about Wikileaks releases of Clinton emails.
Trump gets elected
President Trump offers a pardon to Julian Assange if the Wikileaks chief agreed to say that Russia had nothing to do with hacking emails from the DNC, Assange's lawyer said.
Stone walks free after sentence being commuted by Trump
GOP-led Senate Intel Committee reveal that everything in the Mueller report was true.

And that is only me barely scratching the surface, there has been so much corruption it is mind-boggling.

Moreover,

"The report says Kilimnik, who SSCI identified as a Russian intelligence officer, "almost certainly helped arrange some of the first public messaging that Ukraine had interfered in the U.S. election." (pg. 108)

The report confirms reporting from December that the panel found scant if any evidence of Ukrainian interference."

Meaning Republicans helped push Trump's Biden/Ukraine conspiracies even though they were lies.



"Trump told Mueller in written answers that he recalled no conversations with Stone about WikiLeaks.

SSCI: "The Committee assesses that Trump did, in fact, speak with Stone about WikiLeaks and with members of his Campaign about Stone’s access to WikiLeaks on multiple occasions."

Trump lying to Mueller which is a felony, obstruction of justice, considering they were written answers provided under oath.

"Senate Intel report mentions of Konstantin Kilimnik: 819

House GOP Report mentions: 0"

Kilimnik being the Russian intelligence operative who worked with Manafort, Trump's campaign manager, to coordinate attacks on the US. He was the most involved Russian operative, which is why he's mentioned 819 times in the Senate report. However, the House GOP version didn't mention him at all, meaning they did absolutely zero investigation and just said, 'nothing to see here.'

Good thread

 

[Burkey]

The gist of it is: Trump's administration solicited, welcomed and benefited from Russian interference.

Manafort got in contact with GRU to help Trump
GRU successfully hack DNC emails
Trump admits to sexual assault on tape
Roger Stone and Trump collude with Wikileaks to distract from the previous statement
Wikileaks release emails they have stolen from the Clinton team (related to step 2), in the report its stated that Wiki is actually a front for GRU covert ops.
While the GRU and Wiki were releasding hacked documents, Trump's campaign sought to maximize the impact of those materials to make sure Trump was elected. To do so, the Trump campaign took action to obtain advanced notice about Wikileaks releases of Clinton emails.
Trump gets elected
President Trump offers a pardon to Julian Assange if the Wikileaks chief agreed to say that Russia had nothing to do with hacking emails from the DNC, Assange's lawyer said.
Stone walks free after sentence being commuted by Trump
GOP-led Senate Intel Committee reveal that everything in the Mueller report was true.

And that is only me barely scratching the surface, there has been so much corruption it is mind-boggling.

Moreover,

"The report says Kilimnik, who SSCI identified as a Russian intelligence officer, "almost certainly helped arrange some of the first public messaging that Ukraine had interfered in the U.S. election." (pg. 108)

The report confirms reporting from December that the panel found scant if any evidence of Ukrainian interference."

Meaning Republicans helped push Trump's Biden/Ukraine conspiracies even though they were lies.



"Trump told Mueller in written answers that he recalled no conversations with Stone about WikiLeaks.

SSCI: "The Committee assesses that Trump did, in fact, speak with Stone about WikiLeaks and with members of his Campaign about Stone’s access to WikiLeaks on multiple occasions."

Trump lying to Mueller which is a felony, obstruction of justice, considering they were written answers provided under oath.

"Senate Intel report mentions of Konstantin Kilimnik: 819

House GOP Report mentions: 0"

Kilimnik being the Russian intelligence operative who worked with Manafort, Trump's campaign manager, to coordinate attacks on the US. He was the most involved Russian operative, which is why he's mentioned 819 times in the Senate report. However, the House GOP version didn't mention him at all, meaning they did absolutely zero investigation and just said, 'nothing to see here.'

Good thread

Amazing, truly amazing.

 

[94Mustang302ci]

Amazing, truly amazing.

Sadly all these boot licking morons still like licking Trump taint.

 

[Silver Bullitt]

Sadly all these boot licking morons still like licking Trump taint.

I think your village is calling.

Sponsored